Logia a journal of lutheran theology

Synodical Presidents 

C. F. W. Walther J. H. Sieker

H. A. Preus

J. Bading F. Erdmann

M. Loy T S C  I A eastertide 2003 volume xii, number 2

ei[ ti" lalei', wJ" lovgia Qeou' logia is a journal of Lutheran theology. As such it publishes articles on exegetical, historical, systematic, and liturgical theolo- T C A this issue shows the presidents of gy that promote the orthodox theology of the Evangelical the synods that formed the Evangelical Lutheran Lutheran Church. We cling to God’s divinely instituted marks of Synodical Conference (formed July  at the church: the gospel, preached purely in all its articles, and the Milwaukee, Wisconsin). They include the sacraments, administered according to Christ’s institution. This Revs. C. F. W. Walther (Missouri), H. A. Preus name expresses what this journal wants to be. In Greek, LOGIA (Norwegian), J. H. Sieker (Minnesota), J. Bading functions either as an adjective meaning “eloquent,”“learned,” or (Wisconsin), M. Loy (Ohio), F. Erdmann (Illinois). “cultured,” or as a plural noun meaning “divine revelations,” “words,”or “messages.”The word is found in  Peter :, Acts :, Pictures are from the collection of Concordia oJmologiva and Romans :. Its compound forms include (confes- Historical Institute, Rev. Mark A. Loest, assistant ajpologiva ajvnalogiva sion), (defense), and (right relationship). director. Each of these concepts and all of them together express the pur- pose and method of this journal. LOGIA considers itself a free con- ference in print and is committed to providing an independent L is indexed in the ATLA Religion Database, published by the theological forum normed by the prophetic and apostolic American Theological Library Association, Scriptures and the Lutheran Confessions. At the heart of our  S. Wacker Drive, Suite , Chicago, IL , journal we want our readers to find a love for the sacred E-mail: [email protected] v WWW: http://www.atla.com/ Scriptures as the very Word of God, not merely as rule and norm, but especially as Spirit, truth, and life which reveals Him who is the Way, the Truth, and the Life—Jesus Christ our Lord. FREQUENTLY USED ABBREVIATIONS Therefore, we confess the church, without apology and without AC [CA] Augsburg Confession rancor, only with a sincere and fervent love for the precious Bride AE Luther’s Works, American Edition of Christ, the holy Christian church, “the mother that begets and Ap Apology of the Augsburg Confession bears every Christian through the Word of God,” as Martin Ep Epitome of the Formula of Concord Luther says in the Large Catechism (LC , ). We are animated FC Formula of Concord by the conviction that the Evangelical Church of the Augsburg LC Large Catechism Confession represents the true expression of the church which we LW Lutheran Worship confess as one, holy, catholic, and apostolic. SA Smalcald Articles SBH Service Book and Hymnal SC Small Catechism SD Solid Declaration of the Formula of Concord LOGIA (ISSN #–) is published quarterly by the Luther Academy,  Lavant Drive, Crestwood, MO . Non-profit postage paid (permit #) at SL St. Louis Edition of Luther’s Works Northville, SD and additional mailing offices. Tappert The Book of Concord: The Confessions of the Evangelical POSTMASTER: Send address changes to L, , rd Ave., Northville, SD . Lutheran Church. Trans. and ed. Theodore G. Tappert Editorial Department:  Pearl St., Mankato, MN . Unsolicited material is Triglotta Concordia Triglotta welcomed but cannot be returned unless accompanied by sufficient return postage. All submissions must be accompanied by a 300 word or less abstract of the article. TLH The Lutheran Hymnal Book Review Department:  N. Clinton St., Fort Wayne, IN . All books Tr Treatise on the Power and Primacy of the Pope received will be listed. WA Luthers Werke, Weimarer Ausgabe [Weimar Edition] Correspondence Department:  Pearl St., Mankato, MN . Letters selected for publication are subject to editorial modification, must be typed or computer printed, and must contain the writer’s name and complete address. Logia Forum:  S. Hanna St., Fort Wayne, IN -. HOW TO CONTACT US Subscription & Advertising Department: , rd Ave., Northville, SD . Advertising rates and specifications are available upon request. Policy statement: for orders, subscriptions, questions, comments L reserves the right to refuse ads from organizations or individuals whose theological position or churchly demeanor runs counter to the mission of L Phone L -- to provide an independent theological forum normed by the Scriptures and the E-mail L [email protected] Lutheran Confessions. S Website L www.logia.org SUBSCRIPTION INFORMATION: U.S.A.: one year (four issues), ; two years Fax L --    (eight issues), . Canada and Mexico: one year, ; two years, . Overseas: L one year air, ; one year surface, . All funds in U.S. currency only. Mail  rd Ave., Northville, SD  Copyright © . The Luther Academy. All rights reserved. No part of this publi- To order L Tapes or Books, give us your complete name, cation may be reproduced without written permission. address, phone number, order, total, and check or credit card number and expiration date (Visa or MasterCard). logiai a journal of lutheran theologyx

eastertide 2003 volume xIi, number 2 

 ...... 3  Ecumenism as Fellowship and Confession in the Evangelical Lutheran Synodical Conference of North America Erling T. Teigen ...... 

A Tale of Two Synods: Lessons from the Dissolution of the Synodical Conference Mark Braun ...... 

The Wauwatosa Gospel and the Synodical Conference: A Generation of Pelting Rain Peter M. Prange ...... 

 ......  Worldview: The History of a Concept. By David K. Naugle. Review by LeRoy Leach Das Wort Gottes—Gericht und Rettung: Untersuchungen zur Autorität der Heiligen Schrift in Bekenntnis und Lehre der Kirche. By Armin Wenz. Review by Holger Sonntag B N

  ...... 

The Crisis in American Lutheran Theology • Letters to a Young Preacher Lutheran Character • Theses on the Seal of Confession • Inclusive Lutheranism When Truth Tolerates Error • How to Be Impressive in the Pulpit Breaking the Shackles of Tradition    Inklings by Jim Wilson ......  A Call for Manuscripts ......  C

j

To the editors: LOGIA CORRESPONDENCE AND h As a subscriber, I'm a little put off lack” (..–). Calvin did speak of COLLOQUIUM FRATRUM by some of the distinctly anti-Calvinist obedience as a fruit of genuine faith. (or Reformed) slant to some of your But I fail to see how this is quantitatively We encourage our readers to respond articles. Exhibit one for my complaint different from Luther, who defined the to the material they find in L — is the Reverend Boehme’s article on faith that justifies as a “living” faith. whether it be in the articles, book “Justification by Grace through Faith” But, the Reverend Boehme could have reviews, or letters of other readers. in the most recent L [vol. , no. ] found his thesis exploded had he both- While we cannot print everything that Boehme goes through some spectacular ered to consult, say, Berkhof’s Systematic is sent, we hope that our Colloquium exegetical gyrations of Calvin to come Theology, wherein the Reformed theolo- Fratrum section will allow for longer to the conclusion that the Geneva gian defines faith as made up of notitia, response/counter-response exchanges, Reformer “equated faith and obedi- assensus, and fiducia. Obedience is whereas our Correspondence section is ence,” accuses the Reformed of confus- noticeably absent from this list. Modern a place for shorter “Letters to the Editors.” ing justification with sanctification, and Reformed theologians have been in the then lumps Calvinists with Pat Robertson forefront of those emphasizing If you wish to respond to something and his egregious Arminianism. justification by grace alone through in an issue of L , please do so soon I do not know of any serious (or even faith alone because of Christ alone—the after you receive an issue. Since L semi-serious) student of Calvin’s writ- solas of the Reformation. To equate them is a quarterly periodical, we are often ings who has concluded “that Calvin is with those who teach that “your future meeting deadlines for the subsequent seen as teaching that faith is obedience.” depends entirely on your obedience to issue about the time you receive your Part of the reason for this, surely, is that God” is nonsense and shows a profound current issue. Getting your responses readers run up against quotes like this ignorance of what Calvinism is about. I in early will help keep them timely. from “The Institutes,” for example: “For, think sometimes we Lutherans are so Send your Correspondence contribu- as regards justification, faith is some- insular in our outlook that we automati- tions to L Correspondence,  thing merely passive, bringing nothing cally adopt a “plague-on-your-house” Pearl Street, Mankato, MN , or of ours to the recovering of God’s favor mindset toward others. May God help us. your Colloquium Fratrum contribu- but receiving from Christ that which we tions to L Editorial Department, Richard Wolfe  Pearl Street, Mankato, MN . Wurzburg, Germany

 Logia on CD Volumes I through XI plus XII:1 This includes our last issue, After Ten Years . . .

• PDF format for PC or Mac • Easy access to any issue or article • Colored for better screen viewing LOGIA fi (easy-to- nd headings, etc.) A Journal of Lutheran Theology • Compiled indexes of all  issues (Articles by title and author, logia logia           Reviews by title and author, and L Forum by title) Listing of all issue titles • W  R T   C • Most ads have been deleted. A few remain that were available and may be Volumes – of interest to the reader. +Volume :—After Ten Years . . . Composite Indexes to all issues

WITH LINKS!

• All documents have links and bookmarks. All index entries and Contents page items are linked for instant viewing of any article, review, Forum piece, or Inklings cartoon. • Each endnote reference is linked to its note for instant viewing. • All issues are indexed so that word searches can be done across documents with many search options available.

Price (for a limited time only)— $25 for current and new subscribers $35 for non-subscribers, $50 for libraries. Shipping and handling included. Prices will increase January , 

LOGIA A JOURNAL OF LUTHERAN THEOLOGY  rd Avenue [email protected] E-mail Northville, SD  www.logia.org On-line Phone (605) 887-3145 (605) 887-3129 Fax Ecumenism as Fellowship and Confession in the Evangelical Lutheran Synodical Conference of North America

E T. T

j

 A S    on the his- The rupture was caused by their confessional orthodoxy and led to tory of The Evangelical Lutheran Synodical Conference of the formation of the Tennessee Synod. This family was responsible P North America Ecumenical Endeavor.1 For contemporary for the first publications of the confessional writings in English. The world Lutheranism, such a use of “ecumenical” might be taken as New York Ministerium did not join because the new synodical fed- downright silly, or at least naïve. But I think Schuetze has gotten it eration was, apparently, too Lutheran, and the newly organized exactly right. In this article, I propose that the ecumenical approach Ohio Synod stayed out because of a growing conservatism among to church relations and church union found in the establishment of the pastors there who had recently separated from Pennsylvania, the Synodical Conference represented a high point in post-seven- mostly for geographical reasons. Only three years after its founding, teenth-century Lutheran confessionalism. This is not to say that the the Pennsylvania Ministerium left the General Synod, seemingly in Synodical Conference was a perfect union; but it is to suggest that it the interest of pursuing a closer relationship with the Reformed. So established itself on the only principle possible if one wished to the first ecumenical endeavor got off to a shaky start. maintain a Lutheran identity. Nevertheless, the General Synod grew and, by the s, included Since the collapse of the Synodical Conference there have been most of the Lutherans in the United States. At Missouri’s organiz- frequent calls for a realignment of Lutheranism in America, if not ing convention in Chicago a different strain of Lutheranism came in the world. I also propose that if such a realignment were ever to together with the union of elements from Missouri, represented by take place, it would have to be on the basis of these principles that Walther, and Indiana-Michigan, represented by F. C. D. Wyneken were enunciated by our confessional fathers of the Synodical (formerly from the General Synod) and Wilhelm Sihler (who had Conference in :() A strict unconditional subscription to the been with the Ohio Synod but found it wanting in its confessional Lutheran Confessions, with a confessional concomitant intention commitment and left in ). Wisconsin was organized in , to practice doctrinal discipline on the basis of that commitment. with ties not only to German union mission societies, but to the () A biblical understanding of church fellowship demanding General Synod as well, and ten years later, the Minnesota Synod, substantial agreement in doctrine for the exercise of church fel- also with some ties to the General Synod. Wisconsin’s swing to con- lowship; in other words, that confessional fellowship is required fessional orthodoxy did not begin until the arrival of Professor for church fellowship. Adolph Hoenecke and the presidency of John Bading. During the late s, immigrating Norwegian Lutherans were HISTORICAL BACKGROUND organizing themselves into two opposing camps: on the one side, When the Missouri Synod organized in , American Lutherans churchly confessionalists, and the other side, pietists with an could already celebrate the centennial of a Lutheran Church in emphasis on lay leadership and personal experience. When the America. But even in , there was confessional dissension among Norwegian Synod, organized in , began to look for fellowship American Lutherans. What contemporary histories have labeled and a place to train its preachers, a delegation traveled around the “orthodoxists” had been accusing Muhlenberg of indifferentism United States and found spiritual kinship with Fort Wayne-St. and pietism and thus did not participate in the founding of the Louis orthodoxy, and not in Ohio or Pennsylvania.2 Pennsylvania Ministerium. In , the General Synod was orga- The disruption of the General Synod in the s and s cer- nized with three synods: Pennsylvania Ministerium, North tainly had many causes, but a major factor was the rising confes- Carolina, and Maryland-Virginia. At the same time, there was a sionalism in parts of that body, as well as some pressure from rupture in the North Carolina Synod with the departure of the Missouri and other newly arrived “old Lutherans.” One issue was Henkels, whose history predated the Pennsylvania Ministerium. the ferment following the failed efforts of S. S. Schmucker and his cohorts to present a unique form of Lutheranism for American Christians, if not in response to, at least in harmony with Ralph Waldo Emerson’s appeal for cultural and spiritual independence E T.T is coordinating editor of L and teaches philosophy from the European continent. More to the point, however, the and religious studies at Bethany Lutheran College, Mankato, Minnesota. Portions of this essay were presented at the Second Annual Pieper movement within the General Synod, with Charles Porterfield Lectures, St. Louis, Missouri, Sept –, , and to the Evangelical Krauth at the center, was playing out on American soil the same Lutheran Synod General Pastoral Conference, October , . Confessional revival that in Europe was reacting against rational-    ism and the Prussian Union. In part, the  formation of the Denkschrift there was not a sign of the deep rupture that was to General Synod was in itself an attempt to provide a basis for a come later between Schmidt and Walther, and within the Reformed-Lutheran union in America. Synodical Conference itself, when Schmidt became the leader of A more immediate catalyst for the disruption of the General the Anti-Missourian Brotherhood, which broke with the Synod, however, was the unclear confessional standard in the Norwegian Synod in the election controversy. General Synod. The issue was forced into the open in the dispute The importance of Denkschrift ought not be underestimated. In about the admission of the Franckean Synod, which did not sub- a  essay “The Synodical Conference—The Voice of Lutheran scribe to the Augustana in its constitution. Even without that Confessionalism,” Carl S. Meyer observes that Denkschrift “is the dispute, however, it seems that a rupture was inevitable. platform, perhaps even more so than the actual constitution of this body.”6 Even a cursory reading of Denkschrift reveals that the issue that brought the conference into being was the doctrine of church fellowship. In the doctrines directly related to the gospel, justification, word and sacrament, church and ministry, there was The formation of Krauth’s General nothing to disagree about with the followers of Krauth. On some Council, it would seem, should have issues, one might even find Krauth to have penetrated the included Missouri, Ohio (by this time Lutheran Confessions more thoroughly than Walther. The doctri- nal position that predominated among those who followed Krauth in fellowship with Missouri), and into the Council could hardly be seen to differ from the the Norwegians. Missouri/Norwegian/Ohio group But the question that finally divided them was the question of church fellowship: What is the nb nature of the unity of the external church? In what way and to what extent does the church give witness to the unity of faith? Denkschrift isolates the issue at the very outset: The formation of Krauth’s General Council, it would seem, should have included Missouri, Ohio (by this time in fellowship Various Synods have stood opposed to each other and man- with Missouri), and the Norwegians. Anyone who reads Krauth’s ifested a lamentably discordant spirit, not only in reference Conservative Reformation and Its Theology must come away to this or that essential part of our Lutheran doctrine and mystified as to what could possibly have kept the new midwestern practice, but even in regard to such primary questions as: synods out of the General Council. The doctrinal position clearly the normative character of our symbols, the conditions of presented in Krauth’s articles is certainly something that confes- Lutheran church fellowship, the Scripturalness of our sional Lutherans today would want to adopt as their own. Lutheran Distinctive doctrines, the fundamental character In December , Krauth presented a set of theses on Faith and of the difference between our Lutheran doctrine and church Polity3 as the basis for a new general synodical organization, and it on the one hand, and on the other the various practices of was signed by thirteen synods, including Pennsylvania, Joint Synod the so-called Reformed church. Even in these and kindred of Ohio, Missouri, Norwegian, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Michigan, questions—questions that concern the real basis of our Iowa, Canada, and New York. A year later, however, in November church as an independent visible church-communion — , when the General Council was formally organized, the there was no unanimity. Missouri and Norwegian Synods were absent. Later they were joined by Ohio, Wisconsin, and Minnesota, groups with whom The critical issues are confessional subscription and the doctrine Missouri had not been amicable ten years earlier. of church fellowship. Denkschrift disavows any party spirit, and Why could they not join the General Council? Their thinking is says that if there were any way that conscience could allow it, they revealed in a key document published in .In  the conven- would join one of the existing organizations. But as matters stand, tion of the Joint Ohio Synod appointed a committee to confer with that is not possible, and they find in the “character and churchly other synods with whom they were in doctrinal agreement in order position of those associations of synods hindrances more or less to organize a conference of synods. The invitation went to the insurmountable.”7 Missouri, Illinois,Wisconsin, Minnesota, and Norwegian synods. In The first part is devoted to the General Synod, on which the January , a consultation was held in Chicago with representa- judgment is harsh: it has “tenaciously held fast to its original hol- tives from the Ohio, Missouri, Illinois, Norwegian, and Wisconsin lowness and unsoundness.” Since its founding, it has “become Synods. They agreed to meet again in November of the same year, more and more guilty of a deplorable, deliberate apostasy from when the chief order of business was to be a presentation of the rea- Lutheran doctrine and practice.” After a bill of particulars, focus- sons for forming a separate conference of synodical organizations. ing particularly on the General Synod’s admission of the Franckean Synod, Denkschrift concludes, DENKSCHRIFT Denkschrift or Memorial was published as a pamphlet in .4 Our Christian and Lutheran conscience therefore forbids us According to the Norwegian Synod church paper, Kirkelig to recognize the General Synod as a Lutheran body, and con- Maanedstidende, the draft was prepared by F. A. Schmidt of the strains us rather to pronounce it a sectarian and syncretistic Norwegian Synod, which circumstance has its own irony.5 In communion which is condemned by the word of the Apostle.      

This is followed by quotations of Romans : and Titus :, . . . . The Confessions of the church are certainly not intend- along with several other key passages referred to in a footnote. ed to be merely an empty formula in the shape of one or A brief space is given to the United Synod of the South, which more paragraphs in the Constitution.11 Denkschrift finds to be much more Lutheran than the General Synod and even sees signs of doctrinal discipline. Nevertheless, the Its relationship to the Iowa Synod becomes a test case for USS is not an alternative for the bodies contemplating forming the whether or not the Council actually will abide by its acceptable Synodical Conference because doctrinal base. Even though the Iowa Synod was not received into full membership in the Council, it was given a kind of associate it has been proclaimed openly and loudly, that these southern membership. But, Denkschrift says, Lutherans, whilst they formally strictly adhere to the Augsburg confession, will yet have nothing to do with the [W]e cannot suppose that the Council was ignorant of the “exclusive Lutheranism of the Formula of Concord” or the fact that the Synod of Iowa refuses to adopt the symbols with- so-called “Old Lutherans.” out restrictions, and will not abandon its dangerous doctrine concerning “open questions,” (i.e., doctrines contained in It is likewise regretted that the USS tolerates groups that follow the Scripture and in the Confession, in which, however, diversity “New Measures” and revivalism. of teaching is not to interfere with church-fellowship).12 The third part is devoted to the newly formed General Council. Here one might expect a large dose of “Minnesota nice.” And So long as the Council does not even censure Iowa for its ambigu- indeed, there is high praise for the efforts exerted in The Lutheran ous “and dangerous position on the authority of our church-sym- and Missionary through the pen of Dr. Krauth. Denkschrift singles bols and even of the Scriptures themselves,” the position of the out especially Krauth’s writings on the Lord’s Supper, which also Council itself on its adherence to the Lutheran Confessions and its appeared later in The Conservative Reformation and Its Theology. position on Scripture is called into question. But the writer of Denkschrift and his readers know that the unity of spirit expected between those who followed Dr. Krauth and those about to form the Synodical Conference did not materialize. Denkschrift is quite sure that if there had first been free conferences Deficiency in regard to confessional after the manner of those held in –, dealing with these issues, among those leaving the General Synod and the other fidelity is of itself sufficient to render Lutherans (Missouri, Ohio, Wisconsin, Norwegian and others), our connection with the Council an they certainly would have grown together on these issues. There is praise for the “old Pennsylvania Synod [Ministerium] and those impossible matter. who withdrew from the General Synod,”but it was unfortunate that nb it was “without giving due prominence to the difference in doctrine as the real cause of their separation.”8 In fact, examination of the records of the disruption will verify that the issues were largely par- Equally serious for Denkschrift is the Council’s practice of altar liamentary and political. But even if perfect agreement had not and pulpit fellowship, allowing pulpit exchange and inter-com- been the result of such conferences, the General Council “would munion with Calvinists and other heterodox church-parties. doubtless have been more honest and less ambiguous.”9 Denkschrift grants that the Council has come up with some Denkschrift examines the reasons for the failure to achieve unity. answers, when asked, which were helpful (such as the Galesburg It is decidedly not because the General Council subscribes directly Rule),“although visibly not with joyful willingness,”and they find to the Augsburg Confession alone. The Synodical Conference the resolutions on church fellowship to be “for the most part would prefer to see an explicit acceptance also of the entire Book ambiguous or at least understood and explained in opposite sens- of Concord; yet, es.”13 A final time, Denkschrift faults the Council for not explicitly condemning or censuring unionistic practices in its own midst so far as the doctrinal basis is concerned which the council that are in harmony with the General Synod. has officially adopted in its constitution, we might be per- The bottom line for the Synodical Conference founders is that fectly satisfied with that just as it is, and we would not make this “deficiency in regard to confessional fidelity is of itself a change in it an absolute condition of our attaching our- sufficient to render our connection with the Council an impossi- selves to the Council.10 ble matter.”14 But in the last analysis, the difference goes even beyond a disagreement on the practice of church fellowship: “We But for the Conference organizers, the real issue is whether or not cannot but regard it as revealing a fundamental difference of spir- one actually abides by its doctrinal basis, whether it be Augustana it between ourselves and the council.”As foundational as the doc- alone, or the whole corpus of the confessional writings. trine of church fellowship is, the disagreement reveals that there must be a deeper difference in spirit beyond that, possibly in the But it is quite a different question whether such a verbally whole of their ecclesiology. correct confession is all that can be legitimately required of a The remainder of Denkschrift takes issue with some arguments communion for the purpose of testing its Lutheran character offered by General Council writers and offers a long quotation   from the January  Lehre und Wehre. But finally, the dispute is the confessions above Scripture. In fact it does the opposite, and is over the doctrine of church fellowship, and it is clear that the stan- an attempt to guarantee that Scripture remains the sole authority. dards of those forming the Synodical Conference and those of the C. F. W. Walther, and the other Synodical Conference fathers with General Council are different. him, understood that in order to escape the grip of both pietism In the end, Denkschrift confesses that it is indeed scandalous that and rationalism, the subjective interpretation of Scripture, in which Lutheranism in America is so divided, and promises to labor and each individual could find his own meaning in Scripture, had to be pray for the truth. They hope especially that the coming third cen- superceded by an objective understanding of the sacred text. tennial Jubilee of the Book of Concord The argument for this understanding of the confessional writings was set forth in an essay by Walther on confessional sub- might also become to our Lutheran Church a Jubilee of scription, delivered to the  meeting of the Western District of thanksgiving for the attainment of a true and therefore also the Missouri Synod. The essay was published in the district pro- truly blessed harmony. . . . Then our Lutheran Church, after ceedings and then appeared in Der Lutheraner, August , , having attained true concord and harmony, will occupy its under the full title “Why Are the Symbolic Books of Our Church position over against popery and the multitude of sects as a to Be Subscribed not Conditionally but Unconditionally by the United Church.15 Ministers of Our Church.”16 For Walther, every doctrinal position of the confessional writings, Denkschrift is quite aware that from the Prussian Union to the General Synod Union, the avowed purpose was to present a united no matter what position a teaching may occupy in the doc- front against Deism and Romanism. trinal system of the Confessions and no matter what the form in which it may occur . . . unconditional subscription bears upon every one of the teachings, and none of them may be set aside by any reservation of the subscriber. The churches had to insist that teachers interpret Scripture according to the Walther defines conditional subscription as subscribing to the Confessions Lutheran Confessions. nb with the condition that not every doctrine contained in the symbols needs to be accepted as in complete agreement with the Holy Scriptures and that a distinction may be made even It is easy to understand, therefore, how Carl Meyer could desig- in the doctrines appearing in them. nate Denkschrift the real “platform” of the Synodical Conference. What divided the synods of the Synodical Conference from those Walther then proceeds to describe various kinds of conditional of the General Council and the General Synod was not a full- acknowledgment of the Confessions. The key for Walther is that blown apostasy from the articles of the Lutheran Confessions. It the pious appeal that one simply accept the Scriptures is not a should be remembered that Schmucker’s Definite Platform and confession at all: American Rescension of the Augsburg Confession were not accepted even in the General Synod, and the Americanizing and unionizing the confession that one believes what is in the Bible is not a programs were a real failure (though, as in the Scopes evolution clear confession of faith that distinguishes one from false trial, the loser was the ultimate victor.) But after the debacle of believers, for in spite of this declaration nobody knows “American Lutheranism,” and as a result of pressure exerted by whether one takes the Scriptures in their true sense or not.17 Krauth and his confessional revival, there was a gradual tendency toward Lutheranism in the General Synod. The platform for the The primary purpose of confessional symbols is to make a clear Synodical Conference, therefore, did not offer a restoration of the and distinct statement of doctrine to the world and to distinguish credal doctrinal statements, or a refocusing on justification by the true church from the heterodox and the sects. But especially faith. The issue for Denkschrift was rather the doctrine of church important is the third purpose: fellowship, and its fundamental assertion was that where there is only a formal doctrinal basis, but not a real consistency of practice, () that the church may have a unanimous, definite, and there can be no church fellowship. From its very beginning, a strict common norm and form of teaching for its ministers out of subscription to the Lutheran Confessional writings and concor- which and according to which all other writings and teach- dant practice is the basis for church fellowship. ings that are offered for test and adoption can and should be judged and regulated.18 CONFESSIONAL SUBSCRIPTION And that finally leads Walther to say: The first plank in the Synodical Conference platform was that the churches had to insist that teachers interpret Scripture according to The symbols should be subscribed by ministers in the the Lutheran Confessions. Not only must the authority of the church in order to assure the church that they acknowledge Confessions be clear, but there must be a practiced fidelity to that as correct the interpretation and understanding of the norm. This counter-intuitive principle sounds as though it elevates Scriptures which is set forth in the symbols and consequent-      

ly intend to expound the Scriptures as the church does which against Grundtvigianism. They had already seen the constitution they bind themselves to serve. before they left Norway, and expressed their concern to some at Consequently if the church conceded that its ministers that time. At the  meeting, Preus, along with other new arrivals, should not be required to interpret the Scriptures according offered their formal objections. Since the offending statement was to the symbols but interpret the symbols according to the embedded in an “unalterable” paragraph, the synod was dissolved Scriptures, subscription would not give the church any guar- (or its organizing process was suspended). The constitution was antee that the pledged minister would understand and revised and presented anew in . Now paragraph  read: expound the Scriptures as it does but rather as he himself thinks right. Thus the church would actually set up the The doctrine of the Church is that which is revealed through changing personal convictions of its ministers as the symbol God’s holy Word in the canonical writings of the Old and to which it would obligate them. 19 New Testaments interpreted in accord with the symbols or confessional writings of the Church of Norway, namely: () For Walther, what would be sacrificed in a subscription that says The Apostles’ Creed; () The Nicene Creed; () The that the Confessions will be interpreted according to the Athanasian Creed; () The Unaltered Augsburg Confession, Scriptures, as evangelical and pious as this sounds, is the very delivered to Emperor Charles  at Augsburg, ;() objectivity of God’s revelation. This objectivity would be Luther’s Small Catechism.22 destroyed, and for it would be substituted a purely subjective and individualistic approach to biblical revelation, which, in fact, is the The doctrinal standard is simply that of the Church of Norway, heart of the pietistic aberration. Here Walther has expressed the which they saw no need to change. The form of confessional sub- principle negatively. In affirmative form the Confessional principle scription, however, is quite clearly a quia subscription, demanding means that our pastors and teachers are required to interpret that the Scriptures be “interpreted in accord with” the Scripture according to the Confessions, not the Confessions according Confessional writings. This paragraph was formulated well before to Scripture.20 the Norwegian Synod met Walther, and five years before Walther’s In his Americanisch-Lutherische Pastoraltheologie, Walther paper on confessional subscription was presented. makes the distinction between Scripture and Confession clear, and makes the further distinction between a source of doctrine and a criterion for teaching and confessing: Anything less condemns one to a hopeless . We do not regard the Symbols as the basis of our faith, for only the Sacred Scriptures are that. We regard them merely relativism, in which private views are nor- as the criterion of our confession concerning that faith, and mative, and there can only follow theolog- through a written statement of intention to teach only ical solipsism, as is the case in the vast according to them we are merely seeking a guarantee that our church will have in its teachers upright ministers and majority of Lutheran churches today. pastors, and not foxes and wolves. No one is exerting any nb absolute compulsion [on the candidate], and if he is reluc- tant to subscribe the Symbols, he can go off and earn his livelihood some other way.21 In August , still a year before Walther’s essay was presented, J. A. Ottesen and Nils Brandt wrote a report on their visit to the Walther’s view of confessional subscription was neither a seminaries at Columbus, Fort Wayne, and St. Louis, in which they parochial peculiarity nor simply another version of Waltherian characterized the Missourians as having dogmatism. The same view had already been written into the con- stitution of the Norwegian Synod five years before. a heartfelt trust in God, a sincere love for the symbols and The Norwegian Synod faced a serious problem as it organized the doctrines of the fathers, and a belief that in them His itself. Norway, in its struggle to cope with both pietism and ratio- holy Word is rightly explained and interpreted, and therefore nalism, had fallen victim to the so-called Grundtvigian error a sacrificial, burning zeal to apply these old-Lutheran princi- because of its close association with the Church of Denmark. This ples of doctrine and order. May the Lord graciously revive error saw the Apostles’ Creed as divinely inspired. The first consti- this spirit throughout the entire Lutheran church, so that tution was prepared by J. W. C. Dietrichsen, who was in the U.S. those who call themselves Lutherans may no longer wrangle only temporarily. Nevertheless, at the constituting meeting in , over questions settled by the Lutheran Confessions. May Dietrichsen’s constitution was adopted, and Adolph Carl Preus was they rather show their true Lutheranism by truly believing elected president. Paragraph  defined the doctrine of the synod that God’s Word is taught rightly and without error in the as “revealed through God’s holy word in our baptismal covenant as Lutheran Confessions. Otherwise, the Lutheran name is but well as in the canonical books of the Old and New Testaments.” duplicity and hypocrisy.”23 Later in , Herman Amberg Preus, younger cousin of A. C. Preus, arrived. With other pastors who came to serve the This understanding of confessional subscription is essentially immigrants, he had moved in the Norwegian circles fighting the same as Walther’s, and indeed it is the view of the Book of  

Concord itself. Anything less condemns one to a hopeless rela- is not orthodox, and furthermore, “one who denies the binding tivism, in which private views are normative, and there can only nature of the conclusions which follow from the words of this follow theological solipsism, as is the case in the vast majority of confession” is not Lutheran (Thesis ). Lutheran churches today. Dogma is so privatized that confession is In Denkschrift the framers of the Synodical Conference reject- impossible. Those who want to call themselves confessional and ed fellowship with the General Council because, even though the yet cannot take an absolute, authoritative, infallible Scripture as the doctrinal basis (clear subscription to the Augustana) was accept- norma normans, the infallible, norming norm, are neither better able, there was no accordant practice. In Theses  and , the same nor worse than those who take a fundamentalistic and biblicistic assertions about practice were repeated: view—who, even while making a clear confession of biblical inerrancy and infallibility, persist in doing end-runs around the From the character and nature of this orthodox confession it Confessions, and in doctrinal discussions haughtily assert that they necessarily follows that the ecclesial practice be in accord do not want to hear about the Confessions, but about Scripture. with it. For every ecclesial act is either a direct expression and actual realization of it

—or indirectly, an ecclesial act cannot contradict the confession (Thesis ). And the consequence of this connection between doc- The Synodical Conference’s idea of trine and practice is that a synod “in which the ruling practice of Lutheran orthodoxy and its description the Confessions is in harmony” will not join in fellowship with of a healthy church life were not limited any church body where the “governing practice of the Confessions is contradicted.” This assertion strikes the point where the to an orthodoxy of doctrinal formula- Synodical Conference differed from others on the doctrine of tion, but were a very practical orthodoxy. church fellowship: they did not erect a barrier between doctrine nb and practice so that practice and doctrinal formulation could be viewed in isolation from each other. The remainder of the theses spell out what these contradictions Thus, when as the platform for the Synodical Conference might be, and most of them are aimed toward the General Council: Denkschrift observed the lack of unity in the present fellowships altar and pulpit fellowship with non-Lutheran preachers, even if on American soil, it credited the discord to lack of clarity about they call themselves Lutheran; or the toleration of Chiliasm (Thesis “the normative character of our symbols” and “the scripturalness ); toleration of secret societies (Thesis ); toleration of pastors of our Lutheran distinctive doctrines.”Thereby, it announced that serving Union churches; aberrations in the doctrine of the call (if in the new association of synods the confessional writings would the church body allows its pastors to have not regular calls, but only be of paramount importance. temporary calls, or if they even confirm this confusion through the practice of “licensing,” Thesis ). Contradictions that would be CHURCH FELLOWSHIP divisive of fellowship are revealed in some even more practical ways: Denkschrift also made the second plank in the Synodical an orthodox Lutheran church body must establish orthodox parish Conference platform “the conditions of Lutheran church fellow- schools (Thesis ); and it must insist on orthodox worship materi- ship.” The two issues are closely connected. The Synodical als, seeing to it that “in its congregations only orthodox Agendas, Conference’s focus on the doctrine of church fellowship was not set hymnbooks, Catechisms, doctrinal and educational books are aside after the publication of Denkschrift.In  Wilhelm Sihler used.”It must also be diligent about “removing heterodox books . . . presented to the Synodical Conference a set of eighteen theses. They and introducing orthodox books” (Thesis ). There must be regu- were discussed at the annual conventions from  until , after lar doctrinal and moral discipline according to Matthew  (Theses which attention was necessarily turned to the doctrine of election.  and ), and it must actively maintain educational institutions for Each year, two or three theses would be considered, discussed, and pastors and teachers (Thesis ). Theses  and  were not discussed adopted. The final two theses were never taken up.24 and adopted, since the s brought some new concerns, but these The basis for external, visible church fellowship, according to insisted on a demonstration of “an active love in providing for the Thesis , is the Augsburg Confession. In a note, the same rubric needy widows, orphans, and the like” (Thesis ) and support of given in Denkschrift is repeated: they will not insist on direct sub- home and foreign missions (Thesis ). scription to the other documents in the Book of Concord, but it The theses, which might today strike us as far too prescriptive, cannot be “disavowed that they are connected to the unaltered nevertheless make it clear that the Synodical Conference’s idea of Augsburg Confession in an orthodox conformity.”Thesis  explic- Lutheran orthodoxy and its description of a healthy church life itly asserts the ecumenicity of the Augustana (“Which in its origin were not limited to an orthodoxy of doctrinal formulation, but is as historically particular as it is ecumenical in its doctrinal con- were a very practical orthodoxy—practical, not in superficial util- tent”), and therefore “the consciences of all Lutherans, whether as ity, but in praxis, the way in which the church and the believers individuals, congregations, or church bodies, are bound to it.”The carry out biblical teaching, dogma, in their church life and their consequence of this is that the Augustana is the standard of ortho- life of confession in the world. doxy. Any congregation or church body that does not accept “the The view of church fellowship advocated in Denkschrift and teaching and defending words of these confessions as they stand” Sihler’s theses were not an isolated concept that came to the fore       only with the formation of the Synodical Conference. In  participated in the formation of the General Council. But the issue Herman Amberg Preus, president of the Norwegian Synod, wrote of open questions was troubling to them, as it was also to the Ohio, an article in Luthersk Kirketidende, which was added to his report Missouri, and Norwegian synods and others. In a series of meet- on the church situation in America. This report had been deliv- ings that culminated in October , Missouri and Wisconsin ered to church officials in Norway in the form of “Seven Lectures.” came to agreement. Their agreement was based in part on a set of In this supplement, Preus wrote: theses on open questions. Until this meeting there had not been reported complete agreement in Wisconsin on the issue of open Given the expectations we nourished when the old General questions, but on the basis of the theses prepared by Walther com- Synod ruptured we have been sadly disappointed by the plete unanimity was achieved. The result was that the synods General Council’s position in this matter. What good are any adopted a statement declaring themselves to be in fellowship. The constitutions and orthodox confessions on paper when at declaration ended with this point: the same time one’s life displays weakness, when truth is sup- pressed, and when a blind eye is turned to error? What If in the one synod or in the other an error in doctrine should confidence can anyone have in the orthodoxy of such a soci- appear, each synod shall be held to remove such error by all ety which will, by a conspiracy of silence, permit non- means at its disposal. And as long as this is being done, the Lutherans to enjoy the body and blood of Christ in spite of orthodoxy of the respective synod shall not be questioned.26 the fact that they do not believe them to be present in the sacrament and which will tolerate the abandonment of the The theses address not only the matter of Open Questions, but pulpit to those who will propound false doctrine and also the doctrine of church fellowship. They state: ensnare souls? . . . Unfortunately it is clear to us that the new General Council has not been able to free itself from the . It cannot be denied that in the field of religion or theology unionistic spiritual tendency that was the old General there are questions which, because they are not answered in Synod’s distinctive characteristic and its ruination. The the Word of God, may be called open in the sense that agree- future will show that this spiritual tendency which is in its ment in answering them is not required for the unity of faith essence indifference and truth-denying will dominate the and doctrine which is demanded in the Word of God, nor General Council. God grant that this may not be the case.25 does it belong to the conditions required for church fellow- ship, for the association of brethren or colleagues. Written three years before Denkschrift, the basic premise for the . The error of an individual member of the church even foundation of the Synodical Conference was already in place: the against a clear Word of God does not involve immediately General Council had an acceptable doctrinal statement. But an his actual forfeiture of church fellowship, nor of the asso- adequate doctrinal statement by itself is not a sufficient basis for ciation of brethren and colleagues. fellowship. The doctrinal statement must be accompanied by a . Even if an open error against the Word of God has infect- practice demonstrably consistent with the doctrinal standard or ed a whole church body, this does not in itself make that the confession of the church body. church body a false church, a body with which an ortho- dox Christian or the orthodox church would abruptly have to sever relations. IV. A Christian may be so weak in understanding that he can- If in the one synod or in the other an not grasp, even in a case of a fundamental article of the sec- ond order, that an error which he holds is contrary to the error in doctrine should appear, each Scriptures. Because of his ignorance he may also continue synod shall be held to remove such in his error, without thereby making it necessary for the error by all means at its disposal. orthodox church to exclude him. V. The church militant must indeed aim at and strive for nb complete unity of faith and doctrine, but it never will attain a higher degree of unity than a fundamental one. VI. Even errors in the writings of recognized orthodox teach- Also in , the rapprochement between Missouri and ers of the church, now deceased, concerning nonfunda- Wisconsin had taken place. The origins of the Wisconsin Synod, mental doctrines or even fundamental doctrines of the and to a lesser degree that of the Minnesota Synod, were shrouded second order, do not brand them as errorists nor deprive in the support offered by the General Synod and some pietistic and them of the honor of orthodoxy. union mission societies in Germany. In , when the Wisconsin VII. No man has the privilege, and to no man may the privilege Synod was organized in Milwaukee, there were Buffalo Synod and be granted, to believe and to teach otherwise than God has Missouri Synod congregations in Milwaukee; but they were “old revealed in His Word, no matter whether it pertain to pri- Lutheran” and thus not acceptable to the earliest Wisconsin Synod mary or secondary fundamental articles of faith, to funda- leadership. Under the leadership of President John Bading and mental or nonfundamental doctrines, to matters of faith or Professor Adolph Hoenecke, however, a decidedly confessional of practice, to historical matters or others that are subject direction was adopted. In –, Wisconsin and Minnesota to the light of reason, to important matters or others that  

are subject to the light of reason, to important or seeming- Thesis . Everyone is obligated to avoid heterodox churches, ly unimportant matters. and if one belongs to one like that, he is obligated to renounce VIII. The church must take steps against any deviation from the it and leave it. doctrine of the Word of God, whether this be done by Thesis . True Christians are also found in heterodox fel- teachers or by so-called laymen, by individuals or by entire lowships, to which they adhere as a result of their weak church bodies. understanding. IX. Such members as willfully persist in deviating from the Thesis . Those who become convinced of the partial apos- Word of God, no matter what question it may concern, tasy of the church fellowship to which they belong and yet must be excluded. continue in it are not among the weak but are either luke- X. From the fact that the church militant cannot attain a warm, whom the Lord will spit out of His mouth, or higher degree of unity than a fundamental one, it does not Epicurean religious cynics who in their hearts ask with follow that any error against the Word of God may be Pilate: “What is truth?”28 granted equal rights in the church with the truth, nor that it may be tolerated. For Walther, church fellowship was altar, communion fellowship. XI. The idea that Christian doctrines are formed gradually, The two simply cannot be separated; they are one and the same. The and that accordingly any doctrine which has not complet- Synodical Conference understanding of church fellowship has often ed such a process of development must be considered as an been caricatured as requiring an absolute and complete uniformity, open question, militates against the doctrine that the church at all times is strictly one, and that the Scripture is the one and only, but fully sufficient source of knowledge in the field of Christian religion and theology. XII. The idea that such doctrines as have not yet been fixed The Missouri Synod declared that the symbolically must be counted among the open questions, doctrinal differences that had previously militates against the historical origin of the symbols, par- ticularly against the fact that these were never intended to divided it from the American Lutheran present a complete doctrinal system, while they indeed Church (organized in ) were to be acknowledge the entire content of the Scriptures as the non-divisive. object of the faith held by the church. XIII. Also the idea that such doctrines in which even recognized nb orthodox teachers have erred must be admitted as open questions, militates against the canonical authority and dignity of the Scriptures. and closed communion has been taken to mean the same thing as XIV. The assumption that there are Christian doctrines of faith excommunication. But for Walther and others, refusal to admit contained in the Holy Scriptures, which nevertheless are someone to the table because he is a member of a heterodox church, not presented in them clearly, distinctly, and unmistakably, whether Lutheran, Roman, or Reformed, was not the same thing as and that hence they must be counted with the open ques- declaring him to be non-Christian. The greater sin, if one may speak tions, militates against the clarity, and thus against the very that way, was viewed to be not in the pious, humble believer who, out purpose or the divinity of the Holy Scriptures, which is of ignorance or weak understanding, belongs to a heterodox church. offered to us as the divine revelation. The greater sin, rather, belonged to the one who is aware that his XV. The modern theology that among the clearly revealed doc- church is apostate, even partially, whatever that means, and yet con- trines of the Word of God there are open questions, is the tinues in it, that is, because of willful persistence in error. most dangerous unionistic principle of our day, which will lead consistently to skepticism and finally to naturalism.27 DISSOLUTION OF THE SYNODICAL CONFERENCE It is not so easy to fix when the divergence on the doctrine of It is clear from these theses that Walther and the other Synodical church fellowship began in the Synodical Conference. But the Conference fathers did not hold to a notion of confessional purity rough spots certainly were visible in , when it appeared that that was unachievably utopian. Church fathers may have erred on the Missouri Synod declared that the doctrinal differences that a particular point, but were not to be declared heterodox. A church had previously divided it from the American Lutheran Church body was not to be declared heterodox on the basis of the doctri- (organized in ) were to be non-divisive. As early as ,con- nal error of an individual, or the entire church body, but discussion ferences of the German synods in the Midwest met together and needed to ensue in order to come to agreement, or to find that the discussed the doctrines that had divided them since the s. position in question is willful and persistent. Before , the Buffalo, Iowa, Ohio, Missouri, and Wisconsin A final expression on the issue of church fellowship came from synods had appointed an Intersynodical Committee, which the pen of Walther, in a paper on Communion Fellowship, deliv- attempted to work out a set of theses that could be the basis for ered in  to the Fifteenth Convention of the Western District. church fellowship. In  a set of theses called the Chicago Theses As a preface to the theses dealing specifically with altar fellowship, or the Intersynodical Theses was formulated. It did not find Walther put forward these propositions: approval in the synods, and in  Missouri rejected the theses

      and a new committee in Missouri was appointed, which included Missouri, though remaining in the Conference. During the next Dr. Franz Pieper. The result of its deliberations was the Brief years, The Evangelical Lutheran Synod and Wisconsin Synod also Statement, which was to be the basis for any Missouri negotia- were nearly torn apart by disputes as to when to leave the tions. The by-then-merged Buffalo, Ohio, and Iowa synods—as Synodical Conference, resulting in the formation of the Church of the  ALC—responded to the Brief Statement with the the Lutheran Confession. Declaration, which was supposed to clarify points on which the In  the Church of the Lutheran Confession published a Brief Statement was not so clear. In the view of many in the doctrinal statement on church fellowship, which is very thorough, Synodical Conference, the Declaration emasculated those and which represents most clearly, I believe, the doctrine of “unclear” points. In , Missouri adopted the Declaration, but church fellowship on which the Synodical Conference was found- no fellowship could be declared until there was consultation with ed.31 To say that does not imply approval of the way in which this the other members of the Synodical Conference. When the doctrine has been applied in that church. Yet in spite of some Declaration was opposed at the meeting of the Synodical exegetical issues that arise, it is clear that the doctrine of church Conference, it was set aside, and in  Missouri called for a sin- fellowship expressed there is that of the Synodical Conference at gle document of agreement. its beginning. Whether or not this understanding is faithful to the The debate within the Synodical Conference intensified during teaching of Scripture is a question in need of dogmatic and the s, exacerbated by the Statement of the Forty-Four in , exegetical investigation. I believe such investigation was necessary, which, among other things, rejected the exegesis of Romans : but it is not clear that the question ever got a fair hearing. that had been standard and also raised questions about prayer fel- lowship. In answer to Missouri’s call for a single doctrinal state- ment that could be agreed to by both parties, namely, by the ALC and Missouri, the Doctrinal Affirmation was produced. In Wolf’s words, this was an “attempt to adjust the differences between the The doctrine of church fellowship in the Brief Statement and the Declaration.” 29 But it failed to gain accep- Synodical Conference was the confessional tance in Missouri. In the Synodical Conference it was regarded as a weakening of the Brief Statement, and in the ALC it was regard- principle, and was a consistent applica- ed as giving away too much to Synodical Conference dogmatism, tion of AC  and FC SD . so by  it was dead. Nevertheless, commissions between ALC nb and Missouri continued to work, and by  these had produced a document called the Common Confession. Part  of this docu- ment was accepted by the ALC in . Missouri stated that in it they found nothing that contradicted Scripture. The Evangelical It is clear that the issue on which the Synodical Conference Lutheran Synod and Wisconsin, however, objected that the foundered was the doctrine of church fellowship, and on nothing Common Confession could not be considered an agreement, else. In spite of a miscellany of bones of contention—prayer fel- because nothing was said about the issues that had always been lowship and joint prayer, military chaplaincy, boy scouts, and other the cause of separation from the churches of the old ALC, espe- issues—it is not clear that any amalgam of those issues would have cially the Iowa and Buffalo synods. Ohio had broken with led necessarily to a rupture in fellowship. Rather, the issue had to Missouri over the doctrine of election; Iowa could never unite do with the nature of doctrinal, confessional statements. The issue with Missouri because of the issue of open questions; and with was whether past disagreements had to be addressed directly in a Buffalo, the doctrine of the ministry had been at issue. polemical way, with condemnations and antitheses, or whether Confessional integrity could not operate with a principle of “let affirmative statements were sufficient, and whether fellowship can bygones be bygones.”Issues that divided in the past had to be con- be established on the basis of parallel documents. A serious ques- fronted and dealt with head-on. When part  of the Common tion was whether complete doctrinal unanimity was necessary to Confession was presented, it became unclear whether Part  was to establish church fellowship, and what the nature of that unanimi- be read in the light of Part , or otherwise. ty might be. Equally serious was how the church is to deal with It was, of course, in the Synodical Conference that the issue of doctrinal disunity that arises amongst those who have previously the Common Confession had to be dealt with. At that convention a agreed. As much as anything else, the disruption of the Conference floor committee, with representatives from all the member syn- noted the failure of the original agreement between Missouri and ods, came to the floor with a resolution that found the Common Wisconsin: Confession to be inadequate as a settlement of the previous doc- trinal disagreements. That report was tabled by a majority of the If in one synod or in the other an error in doctrine should delegates, cutting off discussion of the resolution.30 As a result the appear, each synod shall be held to remove such error by all Wisconsin Synod declared itself to be in statu confessionis.From means at its disposal. And as long as this is being done, the that point on, the relationships in the Synodical Conference dete- orthodoxy of the respective synod shall not be questioned.32 riorated, with occasional signs of hope. The basic question was not simply a quarrel over the issue of prayer fellowship, but rather No longer was the Synodical Conference what it had called itself about the adequacy of doctrinal, confessional agreements. In  in Article  of its constitution: “The external expression of the the Evangelical Lutheran Synod suspended fellowship with spiritual unity of the respective synods.”

 

CONCLUSION stance of those confessions by teaching and defense, and by To say that the Synodical Conference was both founded and dis- straightforward doctrinal discipline, was unthinkable for the solved on the doctrine of church fellowship is not to say that the Synodical Conference confessors as much as it was for the six- Synodical Conference was an extremist group that had an unbal- teenth-century Concordists. anced view of Lutheran theology, that it was essentially separatistic The Synodical Conference doctrine of the church fellowship and schismatic in nature, and that it focused so much legalistic was regarded by other American Lutherans, as well as by most in attention on this one doctrine to the exclusion of the doctrine of the Europe, as sectarian and schismatic. Sadly, it became an embar- gospel. Rather, the doctrine of church fellowship in the Synodical rassment to the successors of some of the Synodical Conference Conference was the confessional principle, and was a consistent fathers. Like the Concordists, the Synodical Conference fathers application of AC  and FC SD . It was also the application of the were not at all troubled by the charges of sectarianism and sepa- principle laid out in the Preface to the Book of Concord: ratism attributed to them. It was the furthest thing from the minds of both that they were cutting themselves off from the Our disposition and intention has always been directed mainstream of a purely external or formal ecumenism. It was pre- toward the goal that no other doctrine be treated and taught cisely by separating themselves from error, concretely in their in our lands, territories, schools, and churches than that unconditional commitment to the Lutheran Confessions and the alone which is based on the Holy Scriptures of God and is practiced doctrine of church fellowship, that they were connect- embodied in the Augsburg Confession and its Apology, cor- ing themselves to the true catholic and ecumenical church, with rectly understood, and that no doctrine be permitted its apostolic foundations in Jesus Christ himself. entrance which is contrary to these. . . . One of those who was active in the Synodical Conference on Such an explanation must be thoroughly grounded in behalf of the Norwegian Synod was Ulrik Vilhelm Koren, succes- God’s Word so that pure doctrine can be recognized and sor of Herman Amberg Preus as president of the Norwegian distinguished from adulterated doctrine and so that the way Synod from –. Writing in  at a time when the may not be left free and open to restless, contentious indi- Norwegians were in fellowship with, but not members of, the viduals, who do not want to be bound to any certain for- Synodical Conference, Koren captured the ecumenical spirit of mula of pure doctrine, to start scandalous controversies at the doctrine of church fellowship held by the Conference: will and to introduce and defend monstrous errors, the only possible consequence of which is that finally correct doc- We are indeed ridiculed by being accused of holding that trine will be entirely obscured and lost and nothing beyond our Lutheran Church is the one Church outside of which uncertain opinions and dubious, disputable imaginations there is no salvation. But this is a false charge that is brought and views will be transmitted to subsequent generations.33 against us. . . . By the “Christian Church” we mean all the people who by The doctrine of church fellowship is a clear principle taught by faith base their hope upon our Lord Jesus Christ alone, and Scripture, which, along with all other doctrines of Scripture, is to we hold there are such souls also among Episcopalians and be believed, taught, and confessed —and therefore practiced. Such Catholics and Baptists, etc. . . . clear doctrines do not need other doctrines to interpret or modi- We do not want Christian people to join the Lutheran fy them. But at the same time, the doctrine of church fellowship Church because they cannot be saved outside of it, but so belongs to the very fabric of Lutheran ecclesiology as confessed in that they may honor God by the right confession and be the Book of Concord. The idea that one can confess oneself delivered from the dangers to faith that go with errors. . . . unconditionally to be Lutheran by holding to the Confessional We do not contend against true Christians among the 34 writings, without an accordant commitment to maintain the sub- sects, but against false doctrine. LOGIA      

NOTES . Armin W. Schuetze, The Synodical Conference: Ecumenical Endeavor “Regarding the binding of the ministers to the Symbolical Books of the (Milwaukee: Norwestern Publishing House, ). church, it is to be noted that this is a congregation’s chief bulwark against . It has often been asserted by church historians who should know any attempt on the part of the ministers to become lords over their faith better that the Norwegian Synod became hyper-confessional after they ( Cor :: ‘Not for that we have dominion over your faith, but are helpers fell under the spell of C. F. W. Walther and Missouri. That view has been of your joy, for by faith ye stand’). All false teachers declare that they want shown to be false especially by Carl S. Meyer in Pioneers Find Friends to teach according to Holy Scripture. But if ministers refuse to be bound to (Decorah, IA: Luther College Press, ), and Torald N. Teigen in the acknowledged Confessions of the orthodox church, the congregations unpublished research and papers, mostly located in the ELS archives, have no guarantee that they will not teach papistic, Calvinistic, chiliastic, Mankato, Minnesota. Methodistic, rationalistic, and other [erroneous] doctrines; nor could the . Richard C. Wolf, Documents of Lutheran Unity (Philadelphia: congregation discipline and depose them as apostates. Or even if they could Fortress Press, ), . do this, they would always be exposed to new disputations and controver- . Denkschrift, enthaltend eine eingehende Darlegung der Gründe, sies, even regarding articles of the general Christian creed. By binding min- weshalb die zur Synodal-Conferenz der evang.-luth Kirche von Nord-Amerika isters to the Symbols of the church these disputes would be eliminated once . . . (Memorial Containing a Comprehensive Statement of the Reasons Why for all. Hence since a Lutheran congregation dearly loves the pure doctrine the Synods Forming “The Evangelical Lutheran Synodical Conference” Could of the divine Word, its faith, its Christian liberty, its rest and peace, it ought not Join Any of the Existing Unions of Synods Bearing the Lutheran Name), earnestly to refuse to accept a minister who declines to be bound to our which appeared in the Ohio Synod’s The Lutheran Standard (May–July, precious Concordia. From its very beginning, therefore, our church, after ): ff., ff. Page references will be to the mimeographed text. The the patter of the ancient orthodox church, did not receive anyone as its German text was published as a pamphlet, Columbus, . My English text minister who did not previous solemnly promise to teach according to its is a compilation of the four parts, copied from the Standard and printed in Confessions and never to depart from the doctrines taught in it or from the mimeograph, sometime between  and , during the crisis that led to expressions used therein” (C. F. W. Walther, The Form of a Christian the breakup of the conference. A newer translation, but printed with exten- Congregation, trans. J. T. Mueller [St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, sive elisions, appears in Wolf. According to Maanedstidende (Dec. , ): ], –.; st ed., ). , F. A. Schmidt was the drafting author. . C. F. W. Walther, Americanisch-Lutherische Pastoraltheologie, th . F.A. Schmidt had been a pupil of Walther and a Missouri Synod pas- ed. (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, ), ,n., as cited in tor in Baltimore. In  he was called to the fledgling Luther College, Arthur Carl Piepkorn, “Walther and the Lutheran Symbols,” Concordia Decorah, Iowa, to join Lauritz Larsen on the faculty there. When Walther’s Theological Monthly ,no. (October ): . According to Piepkorn, paper on election was read in , Schmidt at first offered no objections, Walther is here using F. E. Rambach. but soon after, Schmidt along with others accused Walther and those in the . Clifford E. Nelson and Eugene L. Fevold, The Lutheran Church Norwegian Synod who agreed with him of Calvinism. Schmidt’s role in the among Norwegian-Americans,  vols. (Minneapolis: Augsburg, ), : . Election controversy was pivotal. In , Schmidt left the Norwegian . Carl Meyer, Pioneers Find Friends (Minneapolis: Lutheran Synod as a part of the “Anti-Missouri Brotherhood.” Brotherhood Insurance Society, ), Appendix A, . . Carl S. Meyer, “The Synodical Conference: The Voice of Lutheran . Wilhelm Sihler, Thesis on Church Fellowship (discussed at Synodical Confessionalism,” Proceedings of the Forty-Fourth Convention of the Ev. Conference conventions, –), in Verhandlungen der zweiten Luth. Synodical Conference of North America Assembled at First St. Paul’s Versammlung der Evang.=Luth. Synodal=Conferenz von Nord=Amerika, zu Church, Chicago, Ill., December –,  (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing Fort Wayne, Ind., vom . bis zum . Juli  (Columbus, Ohio: John I. House, ), –. Gassmann, ), –, my translation, with the help of Jon S. Bruss. For . Denkschrift, . another translation, see Lewis W. Spitz, Life in Two Worlds (St. Louis: . Ibid., . Concordia Publishing House, ), –. See Appendix for the theses. . Ibid., . . H. A. Preus, “Den lutherske Kirke in Nordamerika,” in Luthersk . Ibid., . Kirketidende  (): –, cited in Todd Nichol, Vivacious Daughter . Ibid., . (Northfield, MN: The Norwegian-American Historical Association, . Ibid., . ), . . Ibid., . . Wolf, . . Ibid., . . The theses appear in Lehre und Wehre (October, ). This transla- . Ibid., . tion was given to me by Prof. Carl Lawrenz in the s; I assume that he is .It was more or less forgotten until a loose, abridged translation the translator. by A. W. C. Guebert was printed in Concordia Theological Monthly . C. F. W. Walther, Essays for the Church, trans. Lawrence White (April ). The Guebert translation was reprinted in the Confessional (St. Louis: CPH, ), : –. Lutheran Research Society Newsletter no.  (Quinquagesima ). It . Wolf, . was reprinted also in Concordia Journal ,no. (July ): –. A . The Synodical Conference was so constructed that all voting was more thorough translation appears in Lutheran Confessional Theology proportional; this meant that the Missouri Synod delegates could outvote in America –, ed. Theodore G. Tappert (New York: Oxford all of the others. In this case, the floor committee was represented by all of University Press, ). Most recently, it appears in Essays for the the synods and came with a recommendation, which was tabled by the Church: C. F. W. Walther, vol.  (St. Louis: CPH, ), as a reprint of majority, thus avoiding discussion of it. the edition appearing in Tappert. References here are here given to the . See L ,no. (Epiphany ): –. Tappert edition. .  Agreement between Missouri and Wisconsin Synods, see . Tappert, , , . Wolf, . . Ibid., . . Tappert, , . . Ibid., , emphasis added. . Ulrik Vilhelm Koren, “What Hinders the Merger of the Various . Walther addressed the issue also in his  Die Rechte Gestalt einer Norwegian Lutheran Synods?” in Truth Unchanged, Unchanging (Lake vom Staate unabhängigen Evangelische-Lutherischen Ortsgemeinde: Mills, IA: ELS Board for Publications, ), –.

books

Q LUTHER ACADEMY BOOKS God and Caesar Revisited Luther Academy Conference Papers ( pages) • paperback • retail .—L price • . Confessional Lutheran Dogmatics Martin Chemnitz: Loci Theologici, De Coena Domini, De Duabus Naturis in Christo, Theologiae Jesuitarum Baptism By David P.Scaer ( pages) • hardcover Four Latin classics published in a facsimile edition by Lutheran Heritage • retail .—L price . • Foundation ( pages) • hardcover Eschatology By John R. Stephenson ( pages) • hardcover • retail .—L price • . • retail .—L price . • Church and Ministry Today: Three Confessional The Church and Her Fellowship, Ministry, Lutheran Essays. The Doctrine of the Call in the Confessions and and Governance By Kurt E. Marquart ( pages) Lutheran Orthodoxy, by R. Preus. “It is Not Given to Women to Teach: • hardcover • retail .—L price • . A Lex in Search of a Ratio,”by W.Weinrich. “‘Church Growth’ As Mission Paradigm: A Confessional Lutheran Assessment,” by K. Christology By David P.Scaer ( pages) • hardcover Marquart ( pages) • paperback • retail .—L price • . • retail .—L price • . The Lord’s Supper By John R. Stephenson N Church Polity and Politics. Papers presented at the  E W ( pages) • hardcover Congress on the Lutheran Confessions (Itasca, IL). Essays by D. • retail .—L price • . Gustafson, D. Jastram, G. Schmeling,W.Weinrich, L. R. Rast Jr.,W.Brege, R. Feuerhahn, M. Noland, Rolf Preus, K. Marquart ( pages) • paper- The Pieper Lectures back • retail .—L price • . A series of lectures in honor of Dr. Francis Pieper, sponsored by A Justification Odyssey Papers presented at N Concordia Historical Institute and the Luther Academy, on topics E the  Congress on the Lutheran Confessions. W addressing current issues in the church. All books in this series are paperback and retail . —L price • . Essays by D. Gard, B. Eckardt, Jr., L. Rast Jr., R. Kolb, J. Bygstad, R. Preus, A. Simojoki, R.. Feuerhahn, K. Marquart. The Office of the Ministry (1996) Lectures by D. Scaer, A. R. ( pages) • paperback • retail .—L price • . Suelflow,K.Schurb,R.Kolb,L.R.Rast Jr. ( pages) Q LOGIA BOOKS Church Fellowship (1997) Lectures by W.C.Weinrich, C. P. Arand, S. Bruzek, K. Marquart, E. T.Teigen, D.A. Gustafson. ( pp.) Communion Fellowship: A Resource for Pietism and Lutheranism (1998) Lectures by Understanding, Implementing, and Retaining the Practice of G. Krispin, R. Feuerhahn, P.McCain,W. Petersen, L. R. Rast Jr., Closed Communion in the Lutheran Parish J. T.Pless, N. Masaki. ( pages) By Paul T.McCain ( pages) • . What Does It Mean to Be Lutheran? (1999) The Christological Character of the Office of the Lectures by P.T.Ferry, S. Murray, C. Lindberg, M. R. Noland, Ministry & Royal Priesthood By Jobst Schöne ( pages) • J.A.O.Preus,D. O. Wenthe. ( pages) .

Lutheran Catholicity (2000) Lectures by W.Weinrich, Dying to Live: A Study Guide By John T.Pless ( pages) C. MacKenzie, J. Maxfield, L. R. Rast Jr., B. Schuchard, and • . (Dying to Live by H.Senkbeil may be ordered from CPH) P. Grime. ( pp.)

Other Luther Academy Books To order Preaching to Young Theologians Sermons of Robert Preus The Luther Academy ( pages) • paperback • Outside the U.S. add $5 per book for shipping & handling • retail .—L price • . • See inside front cover for more ordering information

(605) 887-3145 ¥ www.logia.org ¥ Fax: (605) 887-3129

A Tale of Two Synods Lessons from the Dissolution of the Synodical Conference

M B

j

K. C,  The Wisdom of Father Brown,wrote uates of previous generations, these seminarians probably know that journalism “largely consists in saying, ‘Lord Jones few if any LCMS pastors, students, or church members. Other G Dead’ to people who never knew Lord Jones was alive.”1 than the predictably cranky reports out of Christian News each That certainly describes the feeling I have had about writing and week (typically divulging Missouri’s least attractive traits spun in presenting my doctoral dissertation study of the decision of the the unkindest possible way), WELS students and pastors may Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod (WELS) to break fellow- know little and care less what goes on today in their former sister ship with The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod (LCMS) in synod. The lament of previous generations over the loss of “cher- , and the subsequent decision of the WELS to exit the ished relationships” was anguished and heartfelt; comparisons to Evangelical Lutheran Synodical Conference of North America, how the civil war divided families were not farfetched.7 But how hastening its demise in .2 can the current generation lament the loss of a fellowship it has Few pastors in the WELS ministerium are old enough to recall never known? any personal memories of a shared fellowship with Missouri; if Missouri’s changes are obvious. Though LCMS leaders insisted they do, those memories are more likely centered on the painful into the early s that their synod was not changing,8 later steps that led to the synods’ separation. One must have attained observers confirmed the accuracy of Wisconsin’s accusations. A threescore years and ten, and then some, to remember the days Missouri official in  opined that the synod had “not dealt open- when Missouri and Wisconsin Synod pastors gathered at mixed ly and honestly” with its pastors and people by refusing to “state our conferences, socialized with one another, preached for each changing theological position in open, honest, forthright, simple, other’s festivals, and accepted calls interchangeably. “As I remem- and clear words.”9 In  another Missouri pastor charged that ber, we got along well,”one pastor, now in his eighties, reminisced. while leaders “kept telling people there were no changes” in the “They looked and talked like good Christian men” who loved synod, “any village idiot anywhere in the church knew” there were good cigars and good humor. “In those days the Missouri Synod many.10 Missouri’s changes since , and more specifically since stood for something.”3  and the events at Concordia Seminary, St. Louis, are also obvi- The Missouri Synod still stands for something today. By almost ous (though less remarked upon by Wisconsin).11 any other reckoning, Missouri remains rightly regarded as one of By contrast, Prof. Joh. P. Meyer insisted in  that “we of the the most conservative church bodies in America, lumped (some- Wisconsin Synod are the ones who are preserving the position times in a complimentary way) with Protestant Fundamentalists. and spirit of the Synodical Conference,”12 a view echoed by other Missouri’s rejection of the Lutheran-Catholic joint statement on WELS editorialists.13 That stance is demonstrably correct when justification in  serves as but one example.4 one considers the factors that led to Wisconsin’s exit from the Only those even farther to the right —the Evangelical Lutheran conference: Missouri’s continued participation in the military Synod, the Church of the Lutheran Confession, and the WELS — chaplaincy, its acceptance of Boy and Girl Scouts, its fluctuating would label the LCMS a liberal church body. In many ways the statements on prayer fellowship and prayer witness, and the LCMS is less liberal than it was in , though additional issues apparent erosion in its insistence on the inerrancy of Scripture. divide Missouri from Wisconsin today, some of which appear A more thought-provoking question is whether the WELS has more deeply entrenched now than they were then.5 changed since . Obviously, the Wisconsin Synod has grown This year’s seniors at Wisconsin Lutheran Seminary will com- larger, gained confidence, and exhibited a clearer synodical iden- prise the seventeenth graduation class that was not yet born when tity, but the synod maintains that its doctrinal position has Wisconsin severed fellowship with Missouri in .6 Unlike grad- remained unchanged. Yet even if the content of its teachings has stayed fixed, have there been changes in tone, balance, and per- sonality over the past four decades? M B is professor of theology at Wisconsin Lutheran College in Milwaukee. His  Ph.D. dissertation will be published in  by THE THREE IRONIES OF SCOUTING Northwestern Publishing House under the title A Tale of Two Synods. An earlier version of this article appeared in CHARiS, the journal of It is all but impossible to imagine the apprehension and antago- the Center for the Humanities, Art, and Religion in Society of Wisconsin nism created in the middle of the previous century by issues such Lutheran College, Milwaukee, Spring , –. as Scouting and the military chaplaincy. The explosiveness of 

 

Wisconsin’s anti-Scouting position is best illustrated by events churches are treated favorably by the government, “they should that occurred in Princeton, Wisconsin. Early in —marking be among the first to support Americanism.”19 the fortieth anniversary of the Scouting movement—the local For almost half a century the Wisconsin Synod had struggled newspaper, The Princeton Times-Republic, published several to convince the neighbors that its members were loyal articles in praise of Scouting, calling it “an American institu- American citizens. After making a successful transition from tion” in which “boys of all races and all creeds play and learn German to English in its parishes and after sending thousands together.”Now more than ever it was “necessary to avoid all reli- of its young men to be soldiers in two world wars to fight gious and racial discrimination” so that all Americans grow to against Germans, it was ironic and hurtful to be labeled anti- become fine citizens who observe “that great Democratic ideal American for its opposition to Scouting. Professor Edmund that all men are brothers.”14 As Wisconsin Senator Joseph Reim admitted that it was “no light matter” for synod members McCarthy delivered furious speeches exposing presumed com- to find themselves being denounced as un-American, all for munist sympathizers, and as The Milwaukee Sentinel asked why insisting on the right of free judgment and refusing to bow to any American would refuse to submit to a loyalty oath misinformed public censure.20 denouncing the communist party,15 joining the Scouts was A second irony arose from the fact that for more than thirty viewed as an obvious statement of patriotism and true years big sister Missouri had also opposed Scouting. Some of the American citizenship. most vigorous and widely read position statements against Scouting came out of Concordia Publishing House, authored by Missouri Professor Theodore Graebner.21 Scouting ignored mankind’s sinfulness and the need for repentance as essential ingredients to genuine moral development. Scouting’s “daily Good Turn” led easily to “pharisaical work-righteousness.” Graebner It was “no light matter” for synod mem- charged Scouting with creating a false image of God and religion bers to find themselves being denounced by placing all religions on an equal plane. The Scout oath was friv- as un-American, all for insisting on the olous for “exacting of boys the common virtues of life which they should be expected to do as a matter of course.”22 Graebner saw right of free judgment and refusing to numerous parallels between Scouting and lodges, once labeling the bow to misinformed public censure. Boy Scouts “a preparatory school for Freemasonry.”23 nb Though appreciating Missouri’s partnership in such an unpopular stand, the Wisconsin Synod arrived at its anti- Scouting position independent of the Missouri Synod. The Northwestern Lutheran in  warned that Scouting constituted Late in  a new but experienced pastor had accepted the “a league where boys of all confessions and creeds are banded call to the Wisconsin Synod congregation in Princeton16 and together on oath to ‘do their duty to God’—unionism in its worst immediately sought to dismantle support for Scouting in his form.”24 There is “a religious element in Boy Scoutism,” warned church. Upon discovering that the congregation’s president was Pastor John Brenner, but it was not that of the Bible.25 The propo- also leader of a local scout troop, the pastor demanded his pres- sition that Scouting could be salvaged if placed under Lutheran ident’s resignation from the Scouts.17 Rumors about this “hard- Scoutmasters was dismissed by M. C. Schroeder in  as “pure line pastor” swirled about town all spring until the week before folly.”Regardless what an individual troop does,“it is a unit of the Memorial Day, when the editor of the Times-Republic blasted national organization, supporting it financially and morally,” and the Wisconsin Synod for its anti-Scout stand. Insisting that one thus strengthening “the religiously false, indifferent, unionistic must “either uphold scouting and the American way of life” or and humanistic stand of the organization as a whole.”26 “go back to the narrow teachings of the church,” the editor Yet the Missouri Synod did just that at its  convention. Its charged that the synod “could hardly have done a more damag- Bureau of Information on Secret Societies reported that it was ing act if they had boycotted the Congress of the United States.” unable to find “any factors which would violate our principles” Confusing to the editor was the fact that Wisconsin’s position and it could not discover “anything in the practices of scouting, as not only violated good citizenship, but also won scant endorse- outlined in [Scouting] handbooks, to which a Christian parent, ment from other churches. Scouting was supported by mainline scoutmaster, or pastor would take exception.”Pastors and congre- Christian denominations, in Jewish synagogues, and even gations were urged to exercise “sole and unrestricted right” to among Mormons in Utah—not to mention its endorsement by “control everything of a religious nature that is to be superim- other, larger Lutheran bodies.“Only in the eyes of some , posed upon the official scout program.” Since the committee felt Wisconsin Synod Lutherans is scouting boycotted. Can so many convinced that by appointing congregational scoutmasters, the be wrong and so few be right?”18 Within a week the Times- objectionable features of scouting were removed, it recommend- Republic editorial was reprinted in newspapers across the ed that “the matter of scouting should be left to the individual United States, prompting an outpouring of outraged response. congregation to decide.”27 Anyone, wrote one correspondent, who thought the Boy Scout Less than a year later the Missouri Synod announced that it had oath represented false doctrine “does not belong in this coun- more than  Boy Scout troops and Cub Scout packs in its con- try.” Since clergymen receive special protection and their gregations, the third highest total for any Lutheran church body in

      the United States.28 Either hundreds of Missouri congregations a national network of Lutheran high schools and a Lutheran moved at lightning speed to organize congregational Scout and liberal arts college, maintaining Lutheran principles yet mimic- Cub groups, or—more likely—many Missouri congregations king in many ways the very secular institutions they stand as an had been ignoring their synodical stance for a decade or more. alternative to. Christian contemporary music seeks to sound as The Wisconsin Synod had been sounding restrained but much as possible like other popular songs on the radio, and the determined opposition to Missouri on several issues for almost WELS Connection successfully imitates the polished news mag- a decade, but Missouri’s stunning reversal on Scouting now azines of television. Wisconsin has developed WELS versions of provoked a public response from Wisconsin. In a rambling, twelve-step programs, youth rallies, counseling services and, emotional editorial in June , Northwestern Lutheran editor most recently, its own version of Promise Keepers for men. William Schaefer wrote that he was “shocked beyond measure” and “sick at heart” to read of the high number of Scout troops and Cub packs in Missouri, and still “more than shocked” that Missouri would publish such news at the very time Wisconsin and other Synodical Conference bodies were taking strong issue “It is not a matter of Wisconsin against with Missouri on Scouting. Accusing Missouri leaders of “flaunting” the announcement in the face of its own sister syn- some poor little Scout,” Reim insisted, ods, Schaefer asked, “Is it an attempt to violate and force the but of Wisconsin “standing for a consciences of these men [in the Wisconsin and Norwegian certain principle of Christian education. Synods] and to create disruptions?” Schaefer found it impossi- ble to imagine that the “rugged leadership of the godly and nb valiant men of a few decades ago” in Missouri would have let such a thing occur.29 The sad irony was that the Wisconsin Synod now found itself in conflict with the very body that formerly had been its ally. In all these endeavors there is much to be commended, for “Time was when there was agreement in our Synodical example, the visionary efforts of their initiators, increased doctri- Conference on this matter,” Reim wrote. Individual disagree- nal and practical instruction for synodical members, and fellow- ments among pastors or members of either synod were to be ship opportunities separate from the world. Yet it is ironic that resolved “by patient instruction and evangelical persuasion.” the synod’s first arguments against Scouting lay in its criticism of Different understandings were discussed privately, with fre- the “proliferation of groups” threatening to overrun the local quent warnings against “the mechanical application of ‘rules’ congregation with Calvinistic busyness and usurping from and other legalistic measures.” Missouri’s change in policy and Christian parents and the Christian home the obligation to be the practice had the net effect of making a private practice public. chief teachers of their children.37 One can only wonder what “It is not a matter of Wisconsin against some poor little Scout,” Hans Moussa and John Brenner, chief authors of warnings Reim insisted, but of Wisconsin “standing for a certain princi- against the “proliferation of groups” in the church, would say if ple of Christian education, holding out against a widely held they could see how the Wisconsin Synod has incorporated with- modern opinion”—held, now, even in the Missouri Synod.30 in the WELS dozens of the very sort of groups they considered While continuing to present theological argument against harmful to the church. Scouting, the Wisconsin Synod offered a practical substitute in the Lutheran Pioneer and Lutheran Girl Pioneer programs.31 THE PRIVATE LIVES OF LUTHERANS Therein lies a third irony. A key issue as the Missouri-Wisconsin debate intensified was the In an effort to remain separate from worldly intrusions and question, “Who changed?”38 Wisconsin conceded there was no Calvinist innovations, the Wisconsin Synod opposed numerous virtue in maintaining a position “simply because it has acquired a movements and programs in the early decades of the twentieth halo of age and tradition,” but was worth holding “only if it is century. Synod fathers took a dim view of the radio and con- right.” Wisconsin believed that “the old doctrinal position of the sidered questionable at best its utilization in proclaiming the Synodical Conference was right.”39 Nowhere was debate waged gospel.32 Wisconsin rejected what it considered harebrained more fiercely than over prayer fellowship. schemes to attract new members into the church or to prevent Both synods looked back on a prayer fellowship position young people from leaving it.33 Editorialists especially deplored expounded by Missouri’s Friederich Bente in . Responding to the use of advertising to advance the church’s mission.34 Movies criticism that Missouri pastors had refused to pray with members merited near blanket disapproval.35 Jazz music and the modern of other Lutheran synods in free conferences, Bente granted the dance were condemned as snares of Satan.36 existence of true children of God in all churches. He insisted that Scouting proved to be the “worldly” amusement Wisconsin Missouri would “never deny all communion of faith and prayer” could not defeat, and so a synodically-approved version of to those “who err from weakness or lack of insight,” but would Scouting was incorporated into church life. As it did so, patiently support them. The Ohio and Iowa Synods, however, Wisconsin unwittingly created a paradigm for confronting and could not rightly be considered “weak brothers,” because they overcoming other “worldly” attractions. Today, the once-men- persistently adhered to false doctrines regarding election, conver- acing public secondary education system has been replaced by sion, the Antichrist, Sunday, and other teachings. As long as they

  persisted in false doctrine, despite Missouri’s admonition, testimony in the presence of other Christians. Wisconsin (and Missouri’s “arms were tied” and the synod could not embrace many in Missouri, for this was fast precipitating a Missouri Iowa and Ohio “as brothers.” Prayer fellowship with the “adver- Synod civil war) regarded that as a distinction without a saries” in these synods would make them guilty of “lies and difference.44 deceit, controversy and inconsequence,” and so there could By  Bente’s argumentation was considered a minority “never be any talk of joint prayer services between us and view among some Missouri leaders.45 The meaning of key Bible them.” passages, formerly beyond dispute, was now being debated.46 Going further, Bente reasoned that if Synodical Conference Once unassailable pronouncements from Walther and other representatives prayed with Ohioans and Iowans, the synodical fathers were now opened to reinterpretation.47 Conference “would have had to push on inexorably” to other Missouri’s pre- history was revisited.48 It seems impossible expressions of church fellowship. “Those who say ‘A’ and join for any fair-minded observer to escape the conclusion that the Ohioans and Iowans together in prayer must also say ‘B’ and Missouri was changing.49 institute joint preaching and the Lord’s Supper.” Once a Beginning in the late s, Wisconsin was forced to delin- Christian grants the “deepest and most intimate fellowship” of eate with greater precision what it had taught regarding prayer joint prayer to other Christians, “he cannot deny them any fellowship since at least the turn of the century. other form of brotherly harmony.” Christians who express a There can be “no agreement in prayer among those who are common faith in one form of fellowship must inevitably disagreed as to their various religions,”wrote Pastor Henry Koch include all other expressions of fellowship as well.40 in The Northwestern Lutheran in . “This also excludes prayer fellowship with other Christian denominations as well as among conservative and liberal Lutherans and Lutheran bodies.”50 Joh. P. Meyer explained that prayer fellowship always “pre- supposes a common faith, believing in the same God and Missouri formulated . . . all expressions approaching him on the same premises,”and thus also “presup- poses church fellowship, established by a common confession of fellowship (exchange of pulpits, recep- of a common faith.”51 Neither sin nor weakness of faith disrupts tion of Holy Communion, joint prayer) the unity of the church, but “a refusal to accept the testimony of constituted various manifestations of the Church” does disturb that unity. Taking what seemed direct aim at Missouri inconsistencies, Meyer said there were some a single fellowship. “who make a distinction between church fellowship as it nb appears in the form of pulpit and altar fellowship, on the one hand, and prayer fellowship on the other.”Jesus, however, “does not make such a distinction.”52 Edmund Reim concurred, saying we must “continue to speak Thus, more than a half century before Wisconsin-Missouri of one fellowship,” which “manifests itself in many ways.” tensions arose over prayer fellowship, Missouri formulated and Prayer, altar, and pulpit fellowship “are not so many different championed two key points: () prayer fellowship was to be fellowships, but outstanding ways in which this one great fel- practiced with weaker Christians, even beyond denominational lowship manifests itself.”53 Fellowship “is all of one piece, like boundaries, if they were willing to accept instruction, but the seamless robe of Christ.” Great havoc will result “when this prayer fellowship was withheld when Christians persisted in great unit of the truth concerning the fellowship of believers is unbiblical teaching or practice despite patient instruction; and divided and subdivided into countless fractions,” with each () various expressions of church fellowship were not to be cat- “treated as an isolated subject, for separate treatment and con- egorized or ranked in a hierarchical chain of significance, but all sideration.”54 expressions of fellowship (exchange of pulpits, reception of By  the Wisconsin Synod’s fellowship teaching came Holy Communion, joint prayer) constituted various manifesta- largely to assume the wording employed today. “With Church tions of a single fellowship.41 Fellowship we mean every outward expression and demonstra- By the mid s, however, challenges to both key concepts tion of Christian fellowship,” including prayer, wrote Carl began to appear in the Missouri Synod. Adolph Brux, Missouri Lawrenz. “We stand before [God] not merely as individuals but missionary to India, prayed with Presbyterian mission workers as believers who are intimately joined together with all other in Beirut and Bombay, then charged that the synod was wrong believers here on earth and in heaven above.” Thus “all our to deny prayer fellowship to other Christians who differed with prayers are joint prayers.”In whatever ways believers may act in Missouri over “nonfundamental doctrines.”42 When Missouri giving expression to their common faith, “they do not become Synod representatives began meeting with representatives of so many kinds of fellowship” but are “all expressions of one and the American Lutheran Church (ALC) in the late s, hoping the same fellowship of faith.”55 to resolve lingering doctrinal disagreements, they now opened Wisconsin came to call this the unit concept of fellowship. these meetings with joint prayer.43 Pressed for an explanation, Already in  Wisconsin’s members on the Synodical Missouri drew a distinction between “joint prayer,” intended to Conference Committee on Intersynodical Relations expressed express agreement in faith, and “prayer witness,”offered only as their conviction that the term “church fellowship” was employed

      in Scripture “as a unit thought.”56 By  differences between ifested a simple, childlike faith in her Lord and Savior, but the synods on this point had crystallized. “Should church fel- who nevertheless is unaware of the intersynodical lowship be treated as a unit concept, covering every joint expres- differences and their implications. When I visit her in the sion, manifestation, and demonstration of a common faith?” privacy of her home, it might be a grave mistake were I to Wisconsin answered yes, Missouri, no.57 At that an impasse was assert the principle of refusing to pray with her under such declared,58 and the vote to separate soon followed.59 circumstances. What would the Lord have me do? Should Important to note, however, is that the context of these state- I trouble her simple faith in these matters which are appar- ments was always the public gatherings of Lutheran bodies or ently beyond her grasp? Or is it not my plain duty to sup- their representatives for prayer, worship, or joint ministry port her and build up her faith by praying with her and endeavors. That was certainly the context Bente addressed in otherwise expressing my own faith? . . . , and it was at least implied in the statements both synods We dare not forget that there are those Christians who made in the s and s, when Missouri defended its prac- may be caught in an error, not willingly, but because their tice of joint public prayer and Wisconsin opposed it. Wisconsin understanding of Scripture is insufficient. They are willing rejected a  pronouncement of the American Lutheran to bow to Scripture, but as yet, through human weakness, Church favoring “selective fellowship,” which Wisconsin do not see clearly how the truth of Scripture necessarily defined as the practice of individual pastors and congregations rules out their error. What does God say to us concerning of one synod sharing pulpit or altar fellowship with pastors and such weak Christians? He tells us: “Him that is weak in the congregations of another synod across synodical lines “where faith, receive ye, but not to doubtful disputations” (Rom. the respective synods themselves cannot do it or sanction it.”60 :). Receive, He says, receive such a weak brother and ten- There also Wisconsin objected to the public practice of pastors derly help him overcome his weakness. “Receiving” such a and congregations. weak Christian means that praying with him may well be Wisconsin almost never addressed the private lives of in place and Godpleasing, and we trust that God will help Lutherans. If two individual Lutherans, members of synods not him to grow in knowledge and strength.62 in fellowship, had a private interaction, were they always oblig- ated to act in harmony with the pronouncements of their By using the example of an ALC grandmother, the author of respective church bodies? One might expect Wisconsin’s answer Prayer Fellowship went well beyond saying that fellowship could to be an unequivocal yes, yet Wisconsin writers were cautious still be practiced among those with whom Wisconsin used to be about insisting on that. One church body can declare that its in fellowship. Wisconsin was never in fellowship with the ALC, official doctrinal statements disagree with those of another and of the ALC’s three constituent bodies—the Ohio, Iowa, and church body, but individual church members are often weak Buffalo Synods—Wisconsin had been in fellowship only briefly believers. They may not fully understand or subscribe to the with Ohio, never with Iowa or Buffalo. doctrinal positions of their synod. They may question the accu- racy of their church body’s pronouncements. They may be seeking the truth and willing to accept instruction. Although he rejected even “an occasional joint prayer” between disagreeing synods, Meyer nonetheless conceded that Wisconsin almost never addressed he was assuming “ordinary circumstances.” He allowed for exceptional cases where “the separation of a different confession the private lives of Lutherans. has fallen” because “there are just you and the dying person nb before the face of God.”In such circumstances a person may not only “send a prayer up to God for him,”but also “ask him to join you in a prayer.” Praying together under such circumstances would not constitute unionism, Meyer explained, because “God Carl Lawrenz echoed this concern for weaker Christians in Himself removed all thought of confessional differences by the . While in principle we express church fellowship only with accident which brought you and the dying man face to face.”61 those who “embrace the entire Word of God,” in reality every Wisconsin went still farther, removing such hypothetical Christian’s faith is “plagued by weakness.” Such weakness of “death bed” considerations, in Prayer Fellowship, Tract Number faith “is not in itself a barrier for Christian fellowship,” but  of eleven tracts published to present Wisconsin’s side of the instead “an inducement for exercising our fellowship for the disputed intersynodical issues. While maintaining the synodical purpose of helping our brethren overcome their weakness.”63 line, Prayer Fellowship voiced loving concern for Christians The wording of Wisconsin’s  statement concerning weak beyond its denominational boundaries: believers, repeated in the WELS Doctrinal Statements of , was in fact made more forceful: “Weakness of faith is not in itself We know that there are devout children of God in all syn- a reason for terminating church fellowship, but rather an ods who unfortunately are not yet informed regarding the encouragement for practicing church fellowship more vigorously matters in controversy and are not aware of their involve- to help one another overcome our weaknesses of faith. In pre- ment in error through membership in a heterodox synod. cept and example Scripture abounds with exhortations to pay I may have an A. L. C. grandmother who has always man- our full debt of love toward the weak.”64

 

Many Christians in all church bodies are weak believers.“The they must now by [Wisconsin’s] decree refrain from having faith of Christians and its manifestations are marked by many prayer fellowship with their own parents, who led them into the imperfections, either in the grasp and understanding of faith.”71 Though not responding directly to Faith-Life, Scriptural truths, or in the matter of turning these truths to full Wisconsin Professor Armin Schuetze demonstrated that Faith- account in their lives.”65 In our private relationships we should Life had overstated and misrepresented Wisconsin’s position. not withdraw the practice of prayer fellowship even from While acknowledging the importance of church membership as Christians of other denominations simply because of these weak- an act of confession—“To disregard this public confession nesses in understanding and belief. In fact—significantly, I would only create offense and confusion”—and while agreeing believe—the WELS fellowship statement never mentions that members of a persistently erring church body “are to be denominational membership. The theses present a logical pro- avoided in all joint public expressions of faith,” Schuetze asked, gression of thought from the Una Sancta composed of all “What about private personal relationships to others? . . . believers in Christ, to the outward expressions of faith, to the outward confession of faith, to weakness of faith and persis- Such a person from an erring church body is with you in tence in error.66 your home, or you are in his home. From your private con- tact with him you know that he confesses trust in Christ as his Savior from sin, that he confesses himself to the Scriptures [sic]. It is apparent that his membership in the false church body is the result of a still weak faith which The Wisconsin Synod maintained key does not fully understand the seriousness of the errors, or Synodical Conference positions on the it is clear that he actually does not share the errors at all. In this case you have more to go by than the confession of his unit concept of fellowship and on the church membership; there is also his personal confession distinction between weak Christians before you. And since now in your personal relationship to and persistent errorists. him public offense and confusion is not involved, you may well ask yourself: Is this perhaps one of those of whom the nb Word of God tells you: “Him that is weak in the faith receive ye, but not to doubtful disputations” (Rom. :). Is this a smoking flax that you are not to quench? Thus in It is only after Christians demonstrate that “in spite of patient your private relations where public offense is not involved, admonition” they “persistently adhere to an error in doctrine you may on the basis of a man’s confession recognize him or practice, demand recognition for their error, and make pro- as a brother in Christ with whom you may then also join paganda for it”67 that we are compelled to withdraw our expres- in prayer, and that includes table prayer. sions of church fellowship from them. St. Paul was “not thinking of anyone who might casually make an erroneous doctrinal Scripture “does not give an absolute yes nor an absolute no” statement, but only those who “cling to their error and with it to such questions, Schuetze added, nor does it set up “a detailed create divisions.”We must separate from those who “habitually” set of rules” addressing every conceivable circumstance. adhere to false doctrine. Scripture does not require us to stay Instead, it gives us “principles that are to guide” us.72 away from every person outside of our church body simply Early in , answering a charge from Missourians critical of because he or she believes differently than we do.68 The theses Wisconsin’s position, Pastor James Schaefer, Wisconsin Synod emphasize that we can select individuals or groups for joint Director of Public Relations, wrote that there are “many grada- expression of faith “only on the basis of their confession,” and tions between persistent errorists and Christians whose faith is that “it would be presumptuous on our part to attempt to rec- weak or uninformed, or even misinformed.” Some, Schaefer ognize Christians on the basis of the personal faith of their granted, may by their confession reveal themselves as persistent hearts.69 Yet the theses nowhere state that denominational errorists, “but there are many other Christians who confess membership must be regarded as the only or even the primary their Lord and Savior whom we cannot so identify. In these confession for us to consider. instances, each situation must be considered by itself.” 73 At Wisconsin’s pivotal  convention, some delegates In summary, the Wisconsin Synod maintained key Synodical requested clarification of the synod’s fellowship statement; oth- Conference positions on the unit concept of fellowship and on ers openly challenged it. One pastor asked, “How can we ever the distinction between weak Christians and persistent error- have prayer with others if every prayer is church fellowship?” ists. At the same time, although addressing less frequently the Lawrenz replied that joint prayer was ruled out “only with per- individual applications of this principle to the private lives of sistent errorists.”70 Lutherans, Wisconsin encouraged great patience in dealing Following the  convention, the Protestant journal Faith- with weak brothers and sisters, in spite of outward membership Life criticized Wisconsin’s action of breaking with Missouri, in heterodox church bodies. If anything, Wisconsin urged its arguing that when “the married children of a family who have members to practice prayer fellowship privately with another joined the Missouri Synod because of proximity return home to Christian until subsequent actions revealed that this person was the table of their parents, who belong to the Wisconsin Synod, a persistent errorist.

     

It is more difficult and, admittedly, more problematic to One must also ask whether WELS fellowship presentations examine the post- history of the Wisconsin Synod. Yet we today maintain the same tone and balance that they did four must ask, Has the Wisconsin Synod changed its teaching and decades ago. “In the matter of the outward expression of practice of church fellowship in the past forty years? On the sur- Christian fellowship,” the  theses said, “particularly two face, the answer is clearly no. Recent republication of the Christian principles need to direct us, the great debt of love synod’s Doctrinal Statements in ,74 including the - which the Lord would have us pay to the weak brother, and His approved statement on church fellowship, suggests that every- clear injunction (also flowing out of love) to avoid those who thing has remained the same. Certainly the key points of adhere to false doctrine and practice.”Today, with the definition Wisconsin’s position—the unit concept and the distinction of “weak brother” already apparently more limited, a -page between weak brothers and persistent errorists—have been discussion of church fellowship principles, history, and practice repeated and explained numerous times in the synod’s official devotes only four paragraphs to weak brothers. After those four publications.75 paragraphs come three pages that discuss doctrinal discipline at As the WELS doctrine of church fellowship and, in particu- the congregational, district, and synodical level; the assumption lar, prayer fellowship is presented, all the expected parts are throughout is that these are WELS members who have become there—all believers in Christ belong to the invisible church; a persistent errorists. There is no discussion of the private recog- true spiritual fellowship exists between all believers; some are nition of weak brothers who may exist in other denominations. weak Christians willing to accept further instruction, but Instead, one finds only this blanket statement: “If [individuals] church fellowship is to be practiced only with those whose con- disagree in doctrine, they should not practice church fellowship fession agrees with ours. with each other.”80 Yet subtle differences appear. A  Quarterly presentation says:

From time to time it happens in our congregations that it becomes necessary to discipline a member because of false doctrine. There are, of course, many among our lay people and some perhaps among our pastors and teachers who do Nowhere in the entire article does the not have a clear understanding on this or that point of author say or suggest that we may doctrine. As long as they are willing to be instructed from the Holy Scriptures, we will bear with their weakness. We regard anyone outside the WELS will vigorously practice fellowship with them in order to as a weak brother or sister. help them overcome their weakness and to clear up their confession.76 nb

Admirable as that statement is, the “weak members” throughout the paragraph are limited to membership of the Wisconsin Synod. In fact, nowhere in the entire article does the Beyond the WELS, the past four decades have seen a decline author say or suggest that we may regard anyone outside the in religious knowledge and denominational loyalty.“The will to WELS as a weak brother or sister, although one may assume believe is alive,”according to the  Yearbook of American and that the author himself believed that to be true. The focus has Canadian Churches, but religious institutions no longer shifted entirely to people within our church body. influence people’s lives as they did thirty years ago. Not many Another difference is evident in how  John – is now being people “have kept up an attachment to the denominational employed to limit the number of weak Christians that may even bodies that serve to organize and guide religious life” through exist outside of our synod.“Those who work together with false much of the twentieth century.81 “Religious ex-monopolies,” as teachers,” says a  Northwestern Lutheran presentation, Peter Berger has called them, “can no longer take for granted “either by giving them financial support or by wishing them the allegiance of their client population. Allegiance is voluntary well, are enemies of the truth, who are guilty of sharing in the and thus, by definition, less than certain.”82 Harold Coward goes false teachers’ sin.”77 Offering financial support to any false farther, calling the majority of people today “illiterate of their teacher makes people “accomplices of an evil act, just as much own religion as well as the religion of others.”83 Julia Mitchell as the individual who drives the getaway car for a bank robber Corbett even calls ours “a postdenominational religious cul- or who hides a fleeing murderer.”78 Understood in that way, any ture.” Distinctions between various Protestant and Catholic Christian who has supported any ministry other than that of Christians “are not as central to religion in the United States as the WELS or the ELS has aligned himself with a persistently they were in earlier decades.”84 erring ministry. Therefore, weak brothers and sisters apparent- Many church members have received weaker doctrinal ly can exist only in the WELS or the ELS. The Doctrinal instruction and exhibit a lower level of religious knowledge Statements of  cite  John – in reference to our exercise than they did in the s and s. There may be more weak of church fellowship with persistent errorists; today the passage brothers and sisters in other denominations today. They may be is being used to designate virtually all other church members as willing to receive biblical instruction. They may not have hard- persistent errorists.79 ened in their disagreement to become persistent errorists.

 

IS IT REALLY ABOUT THE FELLOWSHIP PRINCIPLE? revisions, be adopted as its official statement of policy and prac- The most debated passage of the Wisconsin-Missouri debates tice. That subsequently occurred in .87 was Romans :–. In the King James Version in which it was Two challenges to the traditional understanding of Romans then regularly discussed, the passage reads: : arose in the s. The first involved the phrase who cause divisions and offences. Traditionally this phrase was understood Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divi- as an adjectival phrase, modifying the noun doctrine. Thus the sions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have passage censured those who were causing divisions and offences learned; and avoid them. For they that are such serve not by changing the doctrine they had been taught; Wisconsin and our Lord Jesus Christ, but their own belly; and by good conservative Missourians applied this passage to Missourians words and fair speeches deceive the hearts of the simple. who modified teachings and practices regarding Scouting, the military chaplaincy, and, by the s, fellowship itself. Some The traditional understanding and usage of the passage, at charged that the phrase should be understood as an adverbial least since the beginning of the twentieth century, was that it phrase, suggesting that the passage instead censured “those who, prohibited any expression of church fellowship without com- contrary to the teaching you have learned, are creating divisions plete agreement in doctrine. The doctrine referred to all and offenses.” Thus not the teachings but “the actions of these Scripture’s teaching; distinctions between fundamental and men [were] in direct contradiction to the teaching which the nonfundamental doctrines were invalid. The verb form used for Romans had learned.”88 “Moderate” Missourians found this those who cause divisions and offenses suggested a repeated, interpretation convenient grounds for charging conservative habitual practice rather than an occasional mistake in word or Missourians and Wisconsinites that they were the ones violating action. (Saying, for example, “I went downtown last Tuesday,” the passage by acting in such a negative, contentious manner. implies a single occurrence, but saying, “I go downtown on The second challenge in the s, far more devastating with- Tuesdays,” suggests habitual, even premeditated action.) The in the Wisconsin Synod than the first, occurred over the com- passage warned against those whose repeated action caused mands to mark and avoid. By  there was growing insistence divisions and placed obstacles in the path of believers. These in some quarters of the synod, both geographical and ideologi- divisions and offences were contrary to the doctrine—hence, the cal, that Wisconsin break from Missouri too soon. At uniquely WELS term “persistent errorist.” Wisconsin’s  convention at Saginaw the synod’s Standing Committee on Church Union, a permanent committee com- posed of seminary professors and district presidents, recom- mended that Wisconsin terminate fellowship with the Missouri Synod. The convention’s Floor Committee on Church Union, To mark Missouri as a persistently erring composed of selected pastors, teachers, and lay delegates, con- curred with the Standing Committee’s judgment that Missouri church body while failing to avoid it was had “created divisions and offenses by its official resolutions, for them an act of disobedience to a clear policies, and practices.” Yet the Floor Committee felt con- scriptural command. strained to offer a majority resolution that action on severing fellowship with Missouri be delayed until a recessed convention nb in .89 To many, it appeared that Wisconsin separated the two commands of the passage: it marked Missouri as an erring church body but, by postponing final action on severing fellow- Remarkable was how the shape of the debate changed as ship, failed to obey the command to avoid Missouri. different portions of the passage were employed to address A special Wisconsin convention in , noting what seemed shifting disagreements. The first challenge to the traditional to be hopeful signs in the Missouri Synod, delayed action for understanding of the passage came from Adolph Brux, who another year.90 At Wisconsin’s  convention in New Ulm—in questioned the meaning of the phrase contrary to the doctrine ye reverse of —the Standing Committee wanted negotiations have learned. Brux found it indefensible and uncharitable to with Missouri to continue, but the Floor Committee recom- apply the stern warning of the passage to confessing Christians mended a split. The convention’s vote to break with Missouri who sincerely disagreed on doctrines not central to the failed by sixteen votes.91 Christian message. The application of the passage to “every and At this, many Wisconsin Synod pastors, particularly in west- any minute deviation on the part of erring Christians” was, in ern Wisconsin, Minnesota, and the Dakota-Montana District, Brux’s view, “not warranted by the context” of the passage but could no longer in good conscience remain in the Wisconsin actually “in violation of it.”85 Synod. To mark Missouri as a persistently erring church body Although a Missouri Synod review committee repudiated while failing to avoid it was for them an act of disobedience to Brux’s study, and appeals to Missouri’s  and  conven- a clear scriptural command. Where, asked one proponent of tions were unsuccessful,86 Missouri’s shifting fellowship doc- this view, does God’s Word ever give us the right to disobey now trine as presented in its  “Theology of Fellowship” was in because of the possibility of change in the future?92 Pastors with fact an acceptance of the Brux position. Missouri resolved at its similar concerns found one another and, in , founded the  convention that “The Theology of Fellowship,” with slight Church of the Lutheran Confession.93

     

All three of these challenges in the understanding of Romans hopes they are false rumors. It is insisted that all bridesmaids :– still arise. Today, however, disagreement seems to cen- and groomsmen in a wedding must be WELS, or that all pall- ter around word avoid. To what degree, and under what cir- bearers at a funeral must be WELS, because they are “participat- cumstances, are we to avoid? ing in the worship service.”A pastor who consents to having his When the Wisconsin Synod defined church fellowship as picture taken with clergymen of other denominations is con- “every joint activity, manifestation, and demonstration which sidered guilty of “unionism.” Objections are registered because Christians on the basis of their confession of faith find them- WELS and LCMS senior citizen volunteers at a Bethesda selves to be in agreement,” its very wording implied that there Lutheran Home thrift shop are allowed to work together will be—in fact, must be—contacts between WELS members unpacking boxes of donated clothing. Pursuing graduate study and other Christians that were never meant to be considered at non-WELS colleges and universities, even in “non-theologi- “joint activities, manifestations or demonstrations” of a com- cal” areas, receives forceful discouragement. Engaging non- mon faith.94 They may be mere incidental contacts, as when WELS educational consultants is considered a violation of fel- Christians of differing confessions meet in a public forum. lowship. Even “ordinary social relationships” with any other They may be occasions when Christians of differing confessions than WELS Christians are advised against because they may unite around a shared concern or cause, which, however, is not give offense.99 in itself an expression of their faith, nor does it imply common belief. Explanations in the s regarding “cooperation in exter- nals” leave a reader confused, because they seem to grant the existence of “externals” while at the same time all but ruling In , President E. E. Kowalke of North- them out. In , for example, Edmund Reim insisted “without a moment’s hesitation” that there were “externals in which a western College warned against “resorting Christian may without offense cooperate” with those not unit- to quick legalistic action” to settle practi- ed in a common confession of faith. “We do not claim that cal difficulties that were liable to arise. Synodical Conference Lutherans may have no contact with Lutherans of other bodies,”Reim wrote,95 though he and others nb offered the sensible warning that actions labeled “external” may prove to be more of a “spiritual nature than advertised.”96 Yet in the very next sentence it was questioned whether any work in the church, or work of any kind performed by In the hottest moments of the Missouri-Wisconsin debates, Christians, could be understood as being “external”.97 All some synodical interpreters anticipated such overspreading of church work finally constitutes an “expression of a life, a new the fellowship principles. In , President E. E. Kowalke of life, a life created by the special act of the Holy Ghost.” Could Northwestern College warned against “resorting to quick legal- charities, orphanages, and other missions of mercy ever be con- istic action” to settle practical difficulties that were liable to arise. sidered “merely secular agencies for the physical relief of suffering”? Appeal was made to the apostles in Jerusalem, who This may sound silly, but in the event of a separation, we “evidently” did not view their work of caring for widows and may expect such questions as: May I hire a Missourian to the needy as “secular” work. Organized joint work in ministries work for me? May I invite a Missourian to dinner? May a of mercy “is a form in which Christians practice their love as a Wisconsin pastor stop and talk with a Missouri pastor on fruit of the spirit,”and which “definitely” constituted “a phase of the street? Should we let our children play with the their sanctification.”98 Missouri neighbor’s children? May our colleges and Given this interpretation, a conscientious WELS reader schools employ Missouri Synod janitors? Should our high might conclude that since everything a Christian does is a fruit schools and colleges schedule basketball games with of faith, he was forbidden from doing just about anything Missouri Synod schools? Questions like that are going to together with anybody other than WELS members. By logical be asked, because some of them have already been asked. extension, “every joint activity, manifestation, and demonstra- How are they and a hundred more like them, some of tion” of faith could be expanded to include virtually every activ- them much harder questions, going to be answered? We ity and demonstration of his entire life, even if such activities must not think that if our controversy with Missouri is set- were undertaken with no intention of being an expression of tled that our troubles will be ended. There is no such thing fellowship. Understanding is further blurred when the objec- in church life or any other form of life as the end of trou- tion is raised, “No matter what you intended by your actions, I bles, and we don’t look for such a fool’s paradise here on understood them to be an expression of church fellowship.” earth.100 Even where it is not given, offense is taken. Thus the fellowship principle is sometimes stretched to con- Five years later, on the very eve of the synod’s decision to demn actions that go well beyond church fellowship. sever fellowship with Missouri, Pastor E. H. Wendland feared Admittedly, some examples come as rumor or anecdote, per- that the synod’s acceptance of the unit concept of church fel- haps exaggerations or misrepresentations of the truth. One lowship, with its emphasis on every expression of faith, would

  curtail useful activities in which synod members were already comfort at stepping outside the busy, all-encompassing “WELS- engaging with members of other denominations. world” we have created of congregation, school, social activities, familiar customs, and extended family and friendship networks? What do we mean by “furthering the cause of the Gospel” Rather than risk the censure of our ministerial brothers, it may as one of the expressions of faith included in our unit con- be safer and simpler for us to avoid any such contacts with other cept of fellowship? Distributing God’s Word is certainly Christians entirely, even though they offer us opportunities to furthering the cause of the Gospel. This would mean that encourage others in their faith, testify to the truth, and—most our congregation could no longer contribute to the work controversial—even learn something useful from them. of the American Bible Society, since this work is also sup- ported by those not in confessional agreement with us. Any joint expression of faith in the matter of “Christian education” is an activity to be included under church fel- lowship. One would hardly feel free, then, in joining with Koehler warned that legalism people of heterodox church bodies in linguistic studies, “infiltrates among us in the form editing and publishing works of Luther, or participating jointly in any undertaking involving the gifts God has of bragging about orthodoxy.” given us for the furtherance of His work. If some of these nb applications sound rather forced and legalistic, it is not because we feel that they should be included under the concept of church fellowship. We feel, however, that our Commission’s definition of the term as it stands and as it It seems the Wisconsin Synod has faced such concerns proceeds from “every” expression of man’s faith activity before. As we now have ready access to English translations of forces this conclusion upon us.101 the distinctive essays of “Wauwatosa Theologians” August Pieper and J. P. Koehler, it is instructive to reread Koehler’s cri- Such sweeping appeals to the unit concept would inevitably tique of the Wisconsin Synod in . Arguing that “there is not result in “legalistic misunderstandings and misapplications a single truly united external religious communion, synod, or which we do not wish to be responsible for.”102 individual congregation” (and, in fact, “there has never really Asked in a  survey how the Wisconsin Synod had changed been an external unity of the church”[!]), Koehler warned that since , one WELS pastor, grateful for the synod’s numerical legalism “infiltrates among us in the form of bragging about and theological growth, remarked that Wisconsin’s break from orthodoxy,” in which “the stress is shifted from faith to correct Missouri “has contributed to a spirit of parochialism.”103 faith.” Such a “bravado of orthodoxy feeds on the factious spirit Elaborating, this respondent recalled Jesus’ injunction to his dis- which opposes the ecumenical spirit.”105 ciples to be “in the world but not of it,” which the respondent So what happens, or what may happen, when one meets took to mean that “we are to insulate ourselves from the world another Christian? without isolating ourselves from it.” Parochialism “tends to sub- stitute isolation for insulation, or at least to confuse the two.”He I find joy in the fact that someone else believes in the Lord feared that some WELS pastors today regard clergy from other Jesus, no matter in which fellowship I meet him, and that I denominations with suspicion, figuring “it’s better to be safe” can do nothing else than acknowledge him and also in that than sorry, and so “we aren’t even cordial [to them], as though way my Savior and, as there is opportunity, foster this part- cordiality would compromise our confessionalism.” nership in salvation in the truth. When I meet anywhere Another way parochialism manifests itself, he wrote, is in the someone who believes in the Lord Jesus, then what interests practical way we recognize the church. me above all else is that he so believes, and that through faith he is a child of God and a member of the body of We all confess to believe in the holy Christian church, the Jesus. I will express as much in emphasizing the things that communion of saints, but we have a problem translating unite us in faith and not, by finding fault and criticizing, that belief into any kind of positive action—as though mainly emphasize the things that separate us.106 maybe there aren’t any real saints outside the WELS. In applying fellowship principles we want to be sure to be on The doctrine of church fellowship has been called “the spe- the safe side. We overreact. In doing so we exhibit behav- cial identifying mark of the WELS,”and it has been asserted that ior that in part gives credence to the stereotype people WELS members “should not be embarrassed to have [their] have of us. We live and work in an ecclesiastical ghetto, and synod’s name associated” with that doctrine.107 As things now act as though we think that is one of our strengths.104 stand, the teaching and practice of church fellowship constitute “a major divisive issue between the WELS and the LCMS,” and Do the previously mentioned allegations actually violate “because of these differences no church or religious fellowship scriptural principles on fellowship and the  WELS is practiced between the two synods.”108 “Statement on Fellowship”? Or do they demonstrate our dis- Nothing on the horizon suggests any change in the future. LOGIA

     

NOTES . G. K. Chesterton, “The Purple Wig,” in The Wisdom of Father nineteen years in the pastoral ministry when he accepted the call to Brown: The Father Brown Omnibus (New York: Dodd, Mead, and Princeton in November . “St. John’s of Princeton Observes Company, ), –. Stroschein’s Fiftieth,” The Northwestern Lutheran  ( September . For an extremely brief summary, see Mark E. Braun, “The split,” ): . In fact, the synod’s Northern Wisconsin District elected Forward in Christ  (October ): –. Strohschein as its district president in June , apparently on the . Clayton Krug, “Shifts of Fellowship Teachings in WELS, strength of the anti-Scouting stand he took. According to a Milwaukee –; a Personal View” (paper presented to the Winnebago Journal report on the district’s convention, much of its opening session Pastoral Conference, Northern Wisconsin District, Wisconsin Synod, was devoted to “an examination of conscience, apparently pricked over  September ), –. the scouting issue.” “Princeton Minister Named District Chief,” The . “Toward True Reconciliation: A Comment on Lutheran-Roman Princeton Times–Republic,  June , . Catholic Relations,” issued from the Office of the President of the . “Pastor–Scout Issue Hotter,” The Milwaukee Sentinel,  May LCMS in October  and published in many newspapers nationwide, , : . said, “We rejoice that we have much in common with our fellow . “There Must Be An Answer,” The Princeton Times-Republic,  Christians in the Roman Catholic Church,” yet insisted that “very May , . significant differences remain in regard to how we understand salva- . “Milwaukee Journal Prints ‘Editorial’ Story, Many Comments tion.” The president’s statement promised that the LCMS “will contin- Received By Mail,” The Princeton Times-Republic,  May , . ue to work toward true reconciliation” (emphasis in the original). . E[dmund] Reim, “As We See It: Spoken . . . That Ye Should not . See Armin Schuetze,“The WELS and the LCMS—Where Are We Be Offended,” The Northwestern Lutheran  ( June ): . Now?” Wisconsin Lutheran Quarterly  (Fall ): –. . For a summary of Graebner’s changing thought regarding the . In a brief item entitled “About today’s WELS college freshmen,” Scouting issue, see Jerald Kort Pfabe, “Theodore Graebner: Apologist an unnamed editor, noting that eighteen-year-olds in  “have never for Missouri Synod Lutheranism” (Ph. D. diss., St. Louis University, been without MTV” and assume that postage stamps “have always cost ), –.  cents,” added that “they have never heard of the Synodical . Theodore Graebner, “Y” Religion and Boy Scout Morality (St. Conference.” The Northwestern Lutheran  (June ): . Louis: Concordia Publishing House, n. d.), –. . See, for example, Carleton Toppe, “A Prayer for the Missouri . [Theodore] G[raebner], “Was ist von der ‘Boy Scout’— Synod,” The Northwestern Lutheran  ( July ): . Bewegung zu halten?” Der Lutheraner  ( May ): . Armin K. . In a  letter, President John Behnken expressed his “honest E. Keibel, “Why the Wisconsin Synod Suspended Fellowship with the conviction that the Missouri Synod has not changed its doctrinal posi- Missouri Synod (paper presented to the WELS Arizona-California tion” during its efforts to establish doctrinal unity with the American District Pastors’ Conference, San Diego,  October ), , recalled Lutheran Church.” John W. Behnken to “Taffy” (W. F. Klindwirth),  that Graebner wrote somewhere that “Boy Scouts make Pharisees out August , in CHI, Behnken papers, Suppl. ,Box , Folder ; cited of little boys.” by Thomas A. Kuster, “The Fellowship Dispute in the Lutheran . [Fred] G[raeber], “Boy Scouts,” The Northwestern Lutheran  ( Church—Missouri Synod: A Rhetorical Study of Ecumenical Change” April ): . (Ph. D. diss., University of Wisconsin, Madison, ), . . J[ohn] B[renner], “Boy Scouts and the Navy,” The Northwestern . LCMS First Vice President Roland Wiederanders is quoted by Lutheran  ( March ): . James E. Adams, Preus of Missouri and the Great Lutheran Civil War . M. C. Schroeder,“What Ought To Be Our Attitude in Respect to (New York: Harper and Row, ), . ‘The Boy Scouts of America,’” The Northwestern Lutheran  ( June . Richard John Neuhaus is quoted by James E. Adams, “Missouri ): –; ( July ): –. Synod Lutherans: Conservative Takeover,” The Christian Century  . Missouri Synod Proceedings, , . (– August ): . . G[eorge] V. S[chick], “News,” The Lutheran Witness  ( May . For positive WELS assessments of developments in the LCMS ): . since , see, for example, H[einrich J.] Vogel, “The LCMS Dallas . W[illiam] J. S[chaefer], “Boy Scouts And The Missouri Synod,” Convention,” Wisconsin Lutheran Quarterly  (October ): –. The Northwestern Lutheran  ( June ): . Carleton Toppe, “A House Divided Must First Be Set in Order,” The . E[dmund] Reim, “As We See It: Let’s Get This Straight,” The Northwestern Lutheran  ( August ): . “Theses on Northwestern Lutheran  ( November ): –. Justification: A Review and Analysis from the Commission on Inter- . See John F. Brug, “Religious principles of Boy Scouts,” The Church Relations,” Wisconsin Lutheran Quarterly  (Winter ): Northwestern Lutheran  (January ): . –. . J[ohn] B[renner], “The Radio Church,” The Northwestern . [Joh. P.] M[eyer], “Is Conservatism Traditionalism?” Wisconsin Lutheran  ( January ): . Lutheran Quarterly  (April ): . . See J[ohn] J[enny], “Shameful Methods,” The Northwestern . C[arleton] Toppe, “Better, A Hallowed Memory,” The Lutheran  ( November ): . H[ans] K. M[oussa], “The Age of Northwestern Lutheran  ( January ): . E[dward] C. Fredrich, Audacity,” The Northwestern Lutheran  ( January ): . J[ohn] “Wisconsin’s Theological-Confessional History—Viewed Especially in B[renner], “Are They Expedient?” ( February ): . [Fred] G[rae- the Light of Its Fellowship Principles and Practices,” Lutheran ber], “Comments,” ( May ): . “What Others Say,” The Historical Conference Essays and Reports,  (), . Wilbert R. Northwestern Lutheran  ( January ): . J[ohn] Brenner, “What Gawrisch, “‘If ye continue in My Word,’” Wisconsin Lutheran Quarterly Should Be Our Attitude Toward Organizations within Our Church,”  (Winter ): . Theologische Quartalschrift  (October ): –. . E. L. Hiestand, “Princeton Scouts Organized  Years,” The . See [Fred] G[raeber], “Advertising the Church,” The Princeton Times-Republic,  February , . “The Story Behind  Northwestern Lutheran  ( February ): . H[ans] K. M[oussa], Years of Scouting,”  February , . “U[nited] B[rethren] Church “Church Publicity,” ( April ): . F. R. W., “Church Advertising, Will Honor Boy Scouts,”  February , . “Camp Fire Girls Make Bad and Good,” The Northwestern Lutheran  ( April ): –. World Their Back Yard for Good Work,”  April , . “Large Crowd . H[ans] K. M[oussa], “An Expert’s Opinion,” The Northwestern Attends Girl Scout Banquet,”  May , . Lutheran  ( February ): . J[ohn] B[renner],“‘Sunday Movies,’” . “Loyalty Oath Opposition,” The Milwaukee Sentinel,  April The Northwestern Lutheran  ( July ): –. “Moving Pictures , : . at Church Services,” The Northwestern Lutheran  ( June ): . The events at Princeton cannot be attributed to the overzeal- –. ousness of an inexperienced pastor. Walter Strohschein had served . [Fred] G[raeber], “Jazz and the Dance,” The Northwestern

 

Lutheran  ( February ): . H[ans] K. M[oussa], “At Last! An . Carl Lawrenz, “The Scriptural Principles concerning Church Argument for Dancing,” ( November ): –. [Joh. P.] M[eyer], Fellowship,” Theologische Quartalschrift  (): , –. “Parents’ Duties,” Theologische Quartalschrift  (July ): –. . “Report of the Synodical Conference Committee on . H[ans] K. M[oussa], “The Craze for Organizations,” The Intersynodical Relations,” Synodical Conference Proceedings, , Northwestern Lutheran  ( January ): . –. See also Wisconsin Synod Proceedings, , . . Edmund Reim, “Dr. Graebner and the Lutheran Witness,” . Fellowship Then and Now: Concerning the Impasses in the Theologische Quartalschrift  (April ): –. “An Overture and Intersynodical Discussion on Church Fellowship (Milwaukee: WELS a Reply,” (July ): –. Im[manuel] P. Frey, “The Voice of the Commission on Doctrinal Matters, ), . C.U.C.: Joint Prayer and Church Fellowship,” The Northwestern . Synodical Conference Proceedings, , –. Lutheran  ( February ): –. Irwin J. Habeck, “The Religious . James M. Johnson, “Wis. Synod, Missouri Split,” The Milwaukee Press and Our Problem,” The Northwestern Lutheran  ( December Sentinel,  August , :. David A. Runge, “Wisconsin Synod Votes ): –. to Split with Missouri,” The Milwaukee Journal,  August , : , . . Edmund Reim, “Who Has Changed?” The Northwestern .[Joh. P.] M[eyer], “Unionism,” Theologische Quartalschrift  Lutheran  ( December ): –. (January ): . .Friederich Bente, “Warum koennen wir keine gemeinsame . Meyer, “Prayer Fellowship” (October ): –. Gottesdienste mit Ohioern und Iowaern veranstalten und abhalten?” . Tract Number : Prayer Fellowship (Milwaukee: Wisconsin Lehre und Wehre  (March ): –. Synod Conference of Presidents, ), –. . Edward Fredrich, The Wisconsin Synod Lutherans: A History of . Lawrenz, “Scriptural Principles,” –. the Single Synod, Federation, and Merger (Milwaukee: Northwestern . Doctrinal Statements of the Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Publishing House, ), , rightly noted that Bente’s comments Synod (Milwaukee: WELS Commission on Inter-Church Relations, constituted an argument for the “unit concept” of church fellowship reprint ), ; emphasis added. “even if that term is not used.” . Doctrinal Statements, . . Adolph Brux, Christian Prayer-Fellowship and Unionism: An .Ibid., –. Investigation Of Our Synodical Position with Respect to Prayer- . Ibid., . Fellowship with Christians of Other Denominations (Racine, Wis.: n. p., . Ibid., ; emphasis added. ), . . Ibid., . . Wisconsin President John Brenner protested to the Synodical . This report comes from notes written and transcribed in an Conference’s “numerous instances of an anticipation of a union not unpublished paper by Victor H. Prange, “Report and Reaction yet existing, or as it has been put, not yet declared.” Wisconsin Synod (Wisconsin Synod convention ),” . Prange cited the substance of Proceedings, , . For examples, see O[tto] A. Geisemann, “While It each speaker’s statements in quotation marks, although speakers may Is Day: Lutheran Union and Intersynodical Conferences,” The not have used the exact words in every case, and some statements were American Lutheran  (November ): . J. F. E. Nickelsburg, summaries of their remarks. “Concrete Examples of Intersynodical Cooperation,” The American . M. A. Zimmermann, “This Thing Is from Me, Saith the Lord,” Lutheran  (October ): –. Fred H. Lindemann, “The Faith-Life  (October ): –. Churchman’s Digest,” (December ): . . Armin Schuetze, “May We Pray at Table with People not of the . Missouri Synod Proceedings, , –. Wisconsin Synod?” The Northwestern Lutheran  ( October ): . Henry F. Wind, “Stumbling Blocks to the Realization of , ; emphasis added. Lutheran Unity,” The American Lutheran  (September ): –. . James P. Schaefer, “A Reply from Wisconsin,” The American That Wind regarded this as a minority viewpoint is evident by the Lutheran  (January ): ; emphasis added. longer, more positive summary he offered of those who supported . Doctrinal Statements of the WELS (Milwaukee: Commission prayer-fellowship without complete doctrinal agreement. on Inter-Church Relations of the Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran . Most notorious was the Statement of the Forty-Four, in which a Synod, ). select group of Missouri theologians “deplore[d] the fact that Romans . Wilbert R. Gawrisch, “Romans :,  and its Application to : and  has been applied to all Christians who differ from us” in Individual Fellowship,” Wisconsin Lutheran Quarterly  (October minor doctrinal points. “A Statement,” The American Lutheran  ): –. Carl J. Lawrenz, “The Doctrine of Confessional (November ): . Fellowship: Of Joint Worship and Work,” Wisconsin Lutheran Quarterly . W. G. Polack, “Walther’s Attitude Toward Lutheran Unity and  (Spring ): –. John F. Brug, “‘Working Together for the His Part in the First Free Conference,” The American Lutheran  (July Truth’: The Biblical Concept of Fellowship,” Wisconsin Lutheran ): –. Quarterly  (July ): –. Armin Schuetze, “Joining Together in . See “Tragic Misunderstandings,” The American Lutheran  Prayer and the Lord’s Supper: The Scriptural Principles of Fellowship (November ): . “The Problem of Lutheran Unity: . c. Prayer Applied to Prayer and Holy Communion,” Wisconsin Lutheran Fellowship and Unionism,” The American Lutheran  (February ): Quarterly  (Spring ): –. John F. Brug, Church Fellowship: . “The Problem of Lutheran Unity:  Our Fathers and Prayer Working Together for the Truth (Milwaukee: Northwestern Publishing Fellowship,” (August ): –. House, ). John F. Brug, “Church fellowship,” The Northwestern .See Arthur C. Repp, “Changes in the Missouri Synod,” Lutheran  (September ): –. David J. Valleskey, “The Loving Concordia Theological Monthly  (July–August ): –. Robert Practice of Church Fellowship,” The Northwestern Lutheran  M. Hess,“Prayer Fellowship in the First Half of Synod’s History,”(mas- (September ): –. ter’s thesis, Concordia Seminary, St. Louis, ), –. . Gawrisch, “Romans :, ,” ; emphases added. . Henry Koch, “Joint Prayer at Public Meetings,” The . Brug, “Church Fellowship,” Northwestern Lutheran, . Northwestern Lutheran  ( May ): –. .Brug, Church Fellowship, . See also Schuetze, “Joining . [Joh. P.] M[eyer], “Prayer Fellowship,” Theologische Together in Prayer and the Lord’s Supper,” . Quartalschrift  (July ): –. . Doctrinal Statements, , , –. . Meyer, “Prayer Fellowship,” Theologische Quartalschrift  .Brug,Church Fellowship, –, . (January ); , ; (April ): ; (July ): –. . The  Yearbook is quoted in The Northwestern Lutheran  . E[dmund] Reim, “Fellowships—or Fellowship?” Theologische (June ): . Quartalschrift  (April ): . . Peter L. Berger, The Sacred Canopy: Elements of a Sociological . E[dmund] Reim, “The Problem of Scriptural Proof,” Theory of Religion (Garden City, N. Y.: Doubleday & Company, Inc., Theologische Quartalschrift  (January ): –. ), .

     

. Harold Coward, Pluralism: Challenge to World Religions . E[dmund] Reim, “Where Do We Stand? Still More Problems: (Maryknoll, N. Y.: Orbis Books, ), –. Co-operation,” The Northwestern Lutheran  ( April ): –. . Julia Mitchell Corbett, Religion in America, th ed. (Upper W[illiam] J. Schaefer, “Siftings: National Lutheran Council,” The Saddle River, N. J.: Prentice Hall, ), . Northwestern Lutheran  ( March ): . . Adolph A. Brux, Christian Prayer-Fellowship and Unionism: An . Schaefer, “Siftings,” . Investigation of Our Synodical Position with Respect to Prayer- . Meyer, “Unionism,” , . Fellowship with Christians of Other Denominations (Racine, Wis.,: . See Brian Keller, “Christian Education Fellowship: Scriptural ), , , –. Principles of Church Fellowship Applied to Christian Education” . Missouri Synod Proceedings, , ; , –. (paper presented to the Michigan Pastor-Teacher Conference, . Missouri Synod Proceedings, , ; , . Tecumseh, Mich.,  February ), –. . [Oswald C. J. Hoffmann], “Thesis ,” in Speaking the Truth in . E[rwin] E. Kowalke, “Romans :–” (essay delivered at the Love: Essays Related to “A Statement” (Chicago: Willow Press, n. d. Minnesota District Pastoral Conference, Wisconsin Synod, April ), . []), –. . Ernst H. Wendland, “Church Fellowship—a Unit Concept?” . Wisconsin Synod Proceedings, , , –. (paper presented to the Southwestern Conference, Michigan District, .Wisconsin Synod Proceedings, , –. Wisconsin Synod, January ), –. . Wisconsin Synod Proceedings, , –, . . E[rnst] H. Wendland. “The Biblical Concept of Church . Paul Nolting, “Romans :” (essay presented at the New Ulm Fellowship,” paper written to answer questions related to the Pastoral Conference, Sleepy Eye, Minn.,  September ), –. Wisconsin Synod’s Doctrinal Committee on matters relating to its . Statistics of the Church of the Lutheran Confession for  Fellowship Theses” (February ), . showed , baptized members and , communicants in forty- . Survey response . four congregations, and  Christian day school students in seven .Respondent , follow-up interview with the author, schools taught by fifteen teachers. This is Your Church: Church of the Milwaukee, Wis.,  September . Lutheran Confession (CLC Book House, ), –. . J. P. Koehler, “Gesetzlich Wesen Unter Uns” [“Legalism Among . The  Doctrinal Statements say that Christian fellowship Us”] in The Wauwatosa Theology, Curtis A. Jahn, compiling editor does not include “social contact or any of the other ordinary contacts (Milwaukee: Northwestern Publishing House, ), :–; of life” (). Actions such as offering a greeting, shaking hands, extend- emphases in the original. ing hospitality or providing physical help “are in themselves not of .Koehler, “Gesetzlich Wesen Unter Uns,” : –; emphases in necessity expressions of Christian faith.” Doing such things together the original. with others “does not necessarily make them joint expressions of . John F. Brug, “This Blessed Fellowship,” Wisconsin Lutheran Christian faith” unless “those involved intend them to be that, under- Quarterly  (Winter ): . stand them in this way, and want them to be understood this way” (). . John F. Brug, Edward C. Fredrich , and Armin W. Schuetze, . E[dmund] Reim, “The Debate on Union: The Intersynodical WELS and Other Lutherans: Lutheran Church Bodies in the USA Movement,” The Northwestern Lutheran  ( July ): . (Milwaukee: Northwestern Publishing House, ), –.

L ogia T APES motion, and schedule con schedule and motion, p variouswith topics related to our Confessions these and parish practice.Sometimes Bible studies,or even recall the substance of pertinent lectures pertinent from days. seminary even recall the substanceBible studies,or of refreshing! One cangather fromthese tapes resources for sermons,catechesis,and tapes or driving while devoting aquiethour to study the in morning mostbe can them and serve as aclearing house for those who are to interested.Listening these suchconference speakersWhen are tapes made of available to these lectures and conferences to you. extending the benefitssuch of hurdles, N resentations have arelatively audience small limited due pro- to remote locations,   evc fWomen of Service ( The Male Pastor Representing Christ P The Pastoral Words: The Meaning of Women Exegesis on theChurchly Vocation of Or andthe theHoly Ministry The Office of Or andthe New Creation, Creation, W F C Forum, C Forum, C ( W ( The Royal intheConfessions Priesthood W Teigen ar,Goh,Burrow Grothe, Barry, o r al al al o hat It Means aPastor to Be o r e iaino Women of dination dinat rship andthePastoral Office le le le um, b inr M le n rand ATheological d andOrdained: ATheological d andOrdained: d andOr ich m o ) C Scriptures Pastoral Practice o fWomen ion of OFFICE OF THE HOLY MINISTRY ( W ) onf Voelz theImago Dei f Phone E-mail ebsite essions Mail and ATheological dained: ) M ( ( Weinrich Voelz L L L L ( fl Nag ) icts. ( ( W J Logia www [email protected] 605-887-3145 Northville, SD57465 ) o LOGIA TAPES ( e ollenberg hnson Korby l L ) ( V )  o .logia.org e T lz ) apes ¥15825373rd ) ) ( K ae,hwvr soewyo surmounting however,Tapes, is one way of ) or by ) (this isasecurewebsite) categories also T P Dr. NormanE.Nagel Rev. HaroldSenkbeil Liturgy &Hymnody itles available inthese resenters include Dr. Kenneth Korby Dr Dr are held each year dealing Dr Dr. John Kleinig . Da plus many more M . . Dean Church Year Wm. Catechesis A Society L Prayer v Misc. vid P. Scaer  e. W W , we reproduce we , einrich enthe M

The Wauwatosa Gospel and the Synodical Conference A Generation of Pelting Rain

P M. P

j

       of the Lutheran A degree of mental inflexibility (Geistesstarre) has begun to Synodical Conference more dynamic than during the ear- assert itself, coupled with a hyperconservative attitude which A liest decades of the last century. By  the great election is more concerned about rest than about conservation. . . . controversy, which had rocked the conference in the s and This mental inflexibility is not healthy, for if it continues it led to the Ohio Synod’s withdrawal, had mostly subsided. But will lead to death. Both in the mental activity of an individ- fundamental questions of theology remained, questions that the ual and of a community, fresh, vibrant, productive activity is two great Synodical Conference theologians of the nineteenth a sign of health. century, C. F. W. Walther and Adolph Hoenecke, had left largely Koehler suggested that a theologically inflexible attitude unaddressed and unanswered. It was left to a new generation of Synodical Conference theologians to wrestle with these lingering shows itself in a lack of readiness again and again to treat questions. In the Wisconsin Synod that work would be done in theological-scholarly matters or practical matters theoreti- large part by three especially gifted men, to whom theological cally and fundamentally without preconceived notions. This leadership within the synod was entrusted after the death of is necessary if we are to watch and criticize ourselves. Wisconsin’s beloved Professor Hoenecke in . If we practice such self-criticism, Already by the turn of the century things had begun to change at Wisconsin’s Wauwatosa seminary. In  Professor John Ph. we shall find that the divine truths which we draw out of Koehler (–) arrived to teach church history and New Scripture indeed always remain the same, but that the man- Testament exegesis. Professor August Pieper (–) was ner in which we defend them, yes, even how we present added to the faculty two years later to teach Old Testament exege- them is not always totally correct. Here we can and must sis and isagogics. In  Professor John Schaller (–) continue to learn. replaced the sainted Hoenecke as the seminary director, inheriting also his courses in dogmatics and pastoral theology. With the But Koehler warned, “This view is opposed by mental inflexi- Spirit’s guidance and blessing, these three men would change the bility. It rejects criticism and does not want the traditional to be course of Synodical Conference history with a fresh approach to disturbed.”3 theology, eventually tabbed “the Wauwatosa Gospel.” In view of such comments, Koehler and the other Wauwatosa As is the case with most fresh theological thinking, however, the men have often been accused of being opposed to the pursuit of Wauwatosa Gospel was regarded by many with great suspicion. dogmatics and of “throwing off the shackles” of their Synodical Even within Wisconsin the Wauwatosa theologians were ques- Conference predecessors, Hoenecke and Walther. That charge, tioned repeatedly when they did not treat theological subjects in however, is simply unfounded. Koehler and his colleagues often the same traditional, scholastic and dogmatic way they had often described the blessings that good, lively, and scriptural dogmatics been treated.1 The Wauwatosa trio was simply making a concerted imparted to the spiritual life of the Synodical Conference. They effort to reintroduce the historical-exegetical approach so preva- readily admitted that the clear, concise scriptural statements of lent in the theology of Luther, yet this approach was questioned Lutheran dogmatics played an invaluable part in the from the start and is still disparaged to the present day.2 Conference’s orthodox stance, especially when that stance was In his seminal  essay entitled “The Importance of the threatened by European indifferentism and American pluralism. Historical Disciplines for the American Lutheran Church of the Koehler observed: Present,” J. P. Koehler outlined the basic tenets of the Wauwatosa approach and its distinction from the over-reliance on dogmatic Firmness and clarity in confession and the right attitude formulae that reigned supreme within Lutheranism after the time toward Scripture were maintained thereby, while at the same of Luther. He wrote: time the influential quarters in Germany lost the Confessions and Scripture.4

P P is pastor of Good Shepherd Evangelical Lutheran Church, What the Wauwatosa men did decry was an overemphasis on Jacksonville, Florida. dogmatic formulae and finally a legalistic unwillingness to treat 

  and re-treat questions of theology on the basis of Scripture alone tical principles. Instead they simply quote Vater Luther, the without preconceived, dogmatic notions. All too often they sensed Confessions, the orthodox dogmaticians or the synod handbook, a lackadaisical contentment to simply accept the theological con- relying on their authority without doing original, historical- clusions of the Lutheran church fathers a priori. They heard, as exegetical work in the Scriptures themselves. It is easier and safer Koehler put it, to keep the peace and use the Scriptures as a handy rulebook. The Wauwatosa theologians were refreshingly different in that the demand that in the case of Lutheran discussions, [they] respect. They were stirred by their study of the original language are to be based only on the Confessions and the writings of and history of Scripture to scrutinize the pronouncements of the the fathers . . . [and] that Scripture is to be interpreted by the past in careful fashion. This in turn stirred suspicion. But this criti- Confessions and not vice versa.5 cal scrutiny was not undertaken for the purpose of circumventing biblical truth. Their sole purpose was to be truly faithful to the Such attitudes were anathema to the Wauwatosa men, yet they Word of God and historically honest in their approach to the repeatedly encountered those very attitudes within American gospel. The only way to do that was to return to the norma normans, Lutheranism and the Synodical Conference. In particular, Koehler the Scriptures themselves, to the grammar and history of God’s recalled that within the Synodical Conference “a pragmatic dog- inspired Word. Most often the Wauwatosa professors found noth- matism had set in, which aimed principally at keeping the peace.”6 ing awry with the doctrinal presentation of the orthodox dogmati- cians. But sometimes they did, most notably in the hermeneutical approach to the doctrine of election, the traditional Lutheran position on church and ministry, and the proper distinction between law and gospel. The Wauwatosa men were brave enough The Wauwatosa theologians were stirred to admit that some of our Lutheran forefathers simply did not by their study of the original language have those teachings right—or at least that they had spoken and history of Scripture to scrutinize unclearly—and that in their attempt to understand and explain those teachings some men had simply said more than the Holy the pronouncements of the past in Scriptures say. careful fashion. The Wauwatosa triumvirate was also astute enough to know nb that they were taking a huge personal and professional risk by bringing those long-held dogmatic aberrations within Lutheran theology to light. But Koehler comments:

An amusing example of this theological pragmatism has been It would show a lack of historical sense and judgment to be the hesitancy of many conservative Lutheran theologians —even ashamed to make such an admission, a lack of which in part in the twentieth century—to question the semper virgo opinion of has been spawned by the still prevalent dogmatic insistence Martin Luther, an obvious remnant of the reformer’s Roman upon orthodoxy which leads to fear that with such an admis- Catholic piety. This trend goes all the way back to the Latin ver- sion something of the former orthodoxy would be sacrificed.8 sion of Luther’s Smalcald Articles. It also lurked within the Synodical Conference. After authoritatively quoting Luther in his Negative reaction naturally followed this fresh approach. Christian Dogmatics, Franz Pieper conceded, Suspicion emanated especially from St. Louis, with exegetical spe- cialist George Stoeckhardt as the general exception. Eventually a If the Christology of a theologian is orthodox in all other rift was reported within Missouri’s seminary faculty over the respects, he is not to be regarded as a heretic for holding that Wauwatosa approach. A tension also began to develop between Mary bore other children in a natural manner after she had the Wauwatosa and St. Louis seminaries “over the use of Holy given birth to the Son of God, Scripture in relation to dogmatical work,”a division that would be amplified particularly in the s after the deaths of the highly- though adding that respected Hoenecke and Stoeckhardt. The consequence of this we must emphatically object when those who assume that division for the Wauwatosa seminary was that “the exegetical and Jesus had natural brothers pride themselves on their more historical studies received more attention.”9 St. Louis, on the other delicate ‘exegetical conscience’ and disparage those who hold hand, became further steeped in its dogmatic approach, eventual- the opposite view. They certainly cannot prove their view ly leading—in the decided opinion of not a few —to that semi- from Scripture.7 nary’s confessional compromises later in the century when the dogmatic method finally ran its course toward a dead orthodox- Such was and still is the modus operandi of many conservative ism and rationalism. Lutheran pastors and theologians in their pursuit of “maintain- Be that as it may, between  and  the Wauwatosa the- ing” orthodox theology. So often they appear anxious about criti- ologians made an attempt through their exegetical and historical cally questioning and investigating long-held theological opinions studies to free the theological thinking within the Wisconsin of those faithful Lutheran teachers who have gone before us, even Synod, the Synodical Conference, and American Lutheranism if those opinions fly in the face of Scripture and basic hermeneu- from the clutches of a prevailing legalistic-dogmatic approach.

       

Their attempt became known as the Wauwatosa Gospel, and his- Simply put, many if not most Lutheran theologians since the tory has proven that their attempt was largely unsuccessful. For all Reformation gave the impression that it was impossible for the intents and purposes the Wauwatosa Gospel was a fast-moving Scriptures to contain any human contradictions. They believed shower of theological vitality within the Lutheran Church in that ultimately all the doctrines of Scripture must conform to a America, a pelting rain that very few noticed at the time and even logical rule, and they appealed to Paul’s words in Romans :, fewer recall today. kata; th;n; ajnalogivan; th'"; pivstew", in an attempt to support their idea of this “analogy of faith” as a rule of interpretation. THE FIRST FEW DROPS: THE ANALOGY OF FAITH Koehler disagreed. And so it was that in the  inaugural The Wauwatosa Gospel first came to prominence during the issue of Wisconsin’s new theological journal, Theologische Lutheran free conference era during the first decade of the twenti- Quartalschrift, Koehler offered the Synodical Conference and eth century. The long-standing debate concerning the doctrine of American Lutheranism their first taste of “the Wauwatosa election, which had rent the Synodical Conference asunder twenty Gospel” by writing an epic essay on the subject. Most readers, years earlier, was a primary concern. Representatives of the Ohio both outside and within the Synodical Conference, would find and Iowa Synods continued to hold to the seemingly logical but the article and the daring Wauwatosa approach hard to stomach, unscriptural position of an eternal election intuitu fidei (in view of because it seemingly declared war on a four-hundred-year-old faith). The Synodical Conference members were stalwart in their Lutheran tradition of using the so-called analogy of faith as a objection. It soon became apparent, however, that even those with- hermeneutical principle. in Synodical Conference ranks were not in total agreement as to Koehler began his groundbreaking article by setting down what the precise scriptural response to this doctrinal aberration. he saw as the opposing views of Scriptural interpretation found at the free conferences of . He then outlined the path his inves- tigation would take. First, he would provide an exegetical study of Roman :, suggesting that “an unbiased exegesis will show that In the  inaugural issue of Wisconsin’s it does not at all contain a principle of interpretation.”Second, he would search the words of Christ and the apostles in an attempt new theological journal, Theologische to “[justify] this expression and its application. Here again we shall Quartalschrift, Koehler offered the find that this is not the case.” Next, he would Synodical Conference and American use the natural method of interpretation which is inherent in Lutheranism their first taste of the nature of thinking. . . . Using this method, we shall find “the Wauwatosa Gospel” that the Synodical Conference’s way of interpretation is the nb correct one. Finally, he would consider how the Lutheran church fathers used At the Watertown free conference (April –, ), St. Louis the expression, only to find that professor Franz Pieper presented a paper entitled “Fundamental Differences in the Doctrine of Conversion and Election.” It is the fathers speak in various ways about the application of the reported that his presentation “elicited a wide-ranging, ‘rather rule and employ the rule in various ways. Hence it would be haphazard’ discussion during the two days of sessions.”10 Finally a fruitless controversy if one wished to claim the fathers an Ohio Synod pastor questioned a statement by Pieper, suggest- stand for one side or the other exclusively. ing that it did not square with the “analogy of faith.” Pieper Still, Koehler argued that answered his objection by stating that “virtually ‘the analogy of faith’ is the doctrine of justification with which every teaching our understanding of Romans : was not at all unknown must be in harmony.”11 When some disagreed with Pieper’s asser- to the fathers . . . [and that] our fathers, however, Luther tion, J. P.Koehler suggested that the term “analogy of faith” be dis- above all, are nevertheless completely on the side of the cussed at the second free conference, which was held in Synodical Conference as far as the essence of the matter is Milwaukee (September –, ). concerned.13 Koehler reports that the Milwaukee meeting elicited “as many opinions on the subject as speakers,” adding that “no one had Koehler’s conclusions were immediately questioned. Many of thought of carefully examining Rom. :, where the phrase is his own Synodical Conference brethren disagreed with his asser- used by St. Paul, and presenting his findings.” Koehler was quick tions and even seemed to resent what they thought was Koehler’s to observe: dubious characterization of the “Synodical Conference position.” Chief among the challengers was Franz Pieper, who “told The indiscriminate use of this principle in the attempt to Koehler’s father-in-law:‘I fear that Koehler has ventured on a dan- explain the mysteries of Bible truth had served to emasculate gerous field with his article, and his presentation of the subject some of its most vital teachings, e.g., the doctrine of election. might do damage to the Lutheran doctrinal position.’” Even his The proper interpretation of the misapplied Scripture text own Wauwatosa colleagues were not directly won over. In his  became imperative.12 Reminiscences, Koehler recalled that

 

Hoenecke contradicted him, because Koehler’s approach to Koehler was “the tendency to absolutize and read back into the matter in question was new to him. [August] Pieper made Scripture what were only historical developments.”This tendency no reply whatsoever. Afterwards it required considerable was particularly effort on Pieper’s part to conquer his apparent misgivings.14 illustrated in the doctrine of Church and Ministry where But Koehler also comments on a mixed Missouri-Wisconsin con- what had in fact developed historically was treated as though ference in Milwaukee, where his Quartalschrift article was “found the forms themselves were absolute and valid for all times acceptable by the older Missouri pastors.”15 and in all situations. The Church and Ministry issue Outside the Synodical Conference, opposition was predictably becomes an excellent example of the Wauwatosa’s historical- ardent. Koehler recalled how at the April  Detroit free conference exegetical methodology in practice.19

[August] Pieper again tried to introduce the same topic for Church and ministry questions were not new to American discussion. But he didn’t succeed. [The Norwegian F. A.] Lutheranism in the s. Thirty years earlier Walther and Buffalo Schmidt, [the Ohioan F. W.] Stellhorn, as well as Hoenecke Synod leader J. A. A. Grabau had gone toe-to-toe on this troubling and Franz Pieper were afraid of it.16 issue. Grabau and his adherents held a strongly Romanizing posi- tion, maintaining that the office of the public ministry is trans- When Koehler was introduced to Professor Schmidt at that same mitted immediately from the apostles to a special ministerial conference, he was asked if he had been the author of the contro- order, and that this order perpetuates itself by means of ordina- versial article. “The affirmative answer elicited no further com- tion. Grabau also believed that the congregation owed obedience ment but the cryptic: ‘Well—so you wrote that!’”17 to the pastor in all things, both earthly and spiritual, so long as his regulations were not clearly unscriptural. The Missourians strongly disagreed. In response to Grabau, Walther composed his now-famous “Theses on the Church and Of particular concern to Koehler was Ministry,” in which he clearly states in accordance with Scripture that “the tendency to absolutize and read back into Scripture what were only the holy ministry of the Word is the authority conferred (übertragen) by God through the congregation, as the pos- historical developments.” sessor of the priesthood and all church authority, to exercise nb the rights of the spiritual priesthood in public office on behalf of the congregation (Thesis ).

One positive response came from Koehler’s old St. Louis pro- The pastor was the servant to the congregation in the same way fessor Stoeckhardt, who told the writer privately: “It was a good that Jesus had come to be a servant (Mt :–). Walther made thing that you set people straight on that question of the ‘analo- it clear that the Scriptural idea behind ministry has nothing to do gy.’” Few others agreed, however, and the simple fact remained with power. It has to do with service. that a vast majority had not been “set straight” on the analogy of Walther’s theses won the day, and the matter was settled for the faith. Koehler himself recognized that Missouri Synod and the yet-to-be-established Synodical Conference. End of discussion. The Scriptural doctrine of church it was not very promising for the future that many closed and ministry had finally been threshed out in its entirety. Or so it their minds to new insights that might have promoted a was thought. more original and independent study of the Scriptures and thus invigorated the life of the church.18 The Doctrine of the Ministry: Is a Teacher’s Call Divine? By the s additional questions began to arise due to the Thus this first foray of the Wauwatosa Gospel into the public establishment and rapid expansion of Lutheran elementary theological conversation of the Synodical Conference had fallen schools within the Missouri and Wisconsin synods. The questions almost entirely upon deaf ears. The first few drops of rain had fall- were innocent and obvious ones to raise: What about elementary en, and the prevailing theological attitude of the Synodical school teachers? Is their call divine like the pastor’s? Does the con- Conference was seemingly unaffected. The old, legalistic dogma- gregation confer the public ministry of the word on them as well? tism reigned supreme. But the Wauwatosa shower was not about Or are they simply doing a job that has been established by human to dry up and be whisked away. The storm would only intensify. beings, without divine institution? In recalling the historical background to these questions, THUNDER AND LIGHTNING IN THE CHURCH Koehler’s Wauwatosa perspective is unmistakable: AND MINISTRY DEBATE In his introductory essay to Joh. Ph. Koehler’s History of the The argument proceeded along the current “dogmatic” lines, Wisconsin Synod, Leigh Jordahl writes that Koehler’s hermeneuti- i.e., the reasons and counter-reasons advanced were not cal approach is universal in his writings. Of particular concern to deduced by careful exegetical examination of the Scriptures

       

and determination of doctrine and history, but from the the- equivalent to “the office of a pastor” (Pfarramt). . . . No, when ories that the current doctrine of the ministry or the ideas our old teachers ascribe such great things to the office of the concerning the duties and privileges of parents suggested.20 ministry, they thereby mean nothing else than the service of the Word, in whatever way (Weise) it may come to us.24 Some argued that the teacher’s office received its “divineness” only through the benefit of being associated with a pastor. In other We are told that there was “general agreement” at Manitowoc words, if a pastor needed some help in teaching the children, he on the young pastor’s statement, but Koehler himself character- would simply delegate some of his divinely instituted ministry to a ized it as teacher. Others chose to address the question in a more roundabout way. They took a secular view, suggesting that it was the parents’ job, half-hearted progress, . . . [although] it may be said that the not the church’s, to secure Christian education for their children, Manitowoc discussion signaled the beginning of a real exeget- using Ephesians : as their proof passage. Since the establishment ical and historical analysis of such questions in Wisconsin, and of Christian schools is nowhere enjoined upon congregations in beyond, that was destined to have its repercussions. Scripture, whenever a congregation chooses to establish one and secures a teacher, this is simply a free human arrangement left to The Wauwatosa ideal was ever in sight, even in the face of reprisal. Christian discretion. The teacher’s calling is no different than any The public debate would continue within Wisconsin at Koehler’s secular calling. In Koehler’s estimation, both these answers prompting in . Of particular import was the exchange between Koehler and Adolph Hoenecke during a general pastoral conference betrayed the want of understanding for historical develop- held at St. Matthew, Milwaukee. There Hoenecke presented a paper ment. And the exegetical and historical operations were on “The Divinity of the Teacher’s Call.” Hoenecke stressed that its not calculated to discover the development of the teacher’s origin was to be found in the pastoral office, stating that “one must calling so much as [it was] to formulate a thesis that was in integrate the parochial schoolmaster’s office with the pastor’s office, line with the current system of doctrine. because according to the Augustana nobody is to teach publicly without a proper call.” At least Hoenecke was willing to put the On the other hand, if someone ventured to address this question teacher’s calling in a better light than Reinhold Pieper had, conced- from an historical-exegetical perspective, “he was given scant ing that “the call of the teacher is to be considered divine, like that attention, and he himself was handicapped by the sense of being of the pastor.” 25 off the beaten track.”21 Although still a young pastor several years removed from his Wauwatosa professorship, Koehler proved him- self willing to take that risk, as he began to question the “old ways” of answering these inquiries in the mid-s. The Wauwatosa Gospel was in its earliest stages of conception. “Why detour through the office of the Koehler recounts the history of his entering the debate. Pastor pastor in order to establish the divine Reinhold Pieper, brother of Franz and August, read a paper on the character of the teacher’s call?” question of the teacher’s call at a meeting of Synodical Conference pastors and teachers in the Manitowoc-Sheboygan area. Pieper nb “espoused the ‘secular’ interpretation,”while suggesting that it was “a commendable conception of their office when the teachers look upon it as divine, . . . but their calling belongs to the same One man in attendance, however, was not content with category as that of the Christian cobbler or tailor.”22 Hoenecke’s concession, and that again was J. P.Koehler. He asked, Koehler, who happened to be in attendance at this conference, “Why detour through the office of the pastor in order to establish was not going to let what he considered a disparaging remark the divine character of the teacher’s call?” He argued that a toward the teaching ministry pass without comment. Instead he Christian teacher “labors in the word and doctrine,”the same as a contended that pastor. “Why then should not Acts :: ‘The Holy Ghost hath made you overseers over the flock’ apply to teachers as well as to the ministry belongs to the teacher and to every Christian as pastors[?]” Hoenecke acknowledged the comment as novel and well as to the pastor. . . . Because the Christian teacher’s worthy of careful study.26 whole work of teaching is governed by the Word of God, his One common misunderstanding that became especially appar- work in the school merits the same appreciation of being ent at this conference was the intended meaning of the word ‘divine’ as that of the pastor in the congregation.23 “public” when referring to the public ministry. Hoenecke seemed to suggest that “public” (öffentlich) had to do with the number of With this Koehler was saying nothing more than his beloved sem- people served by the person called. He inary professor, C. F. W. Walther, had said to the  Missouri Synod convention two decades earlier: ventured that when a family, or even two, thus provided for the training of their children [by engaging a private tutor], The Apology does not have Grabau’s understanding, accord- such a teacher’s call was not a public call. The situation might ing to which “the office of the ministry” (Predigtamt) is always be different when three or more families acted together.

 

Koehler quickly spotted the arbitrariness of Hoenecke’s theologi- precept. Instead they are evangelically instituted by the Spirit cal mathematics. “Prof. Hoenecke’s statement did not clarify the through the gospel. meaning of the word ‘public’ in the Augsburg Confession; so the Koehler mentions that his writer now enlarged on the Latin term publice.” Koehler went on to explain that the word views did not meet with vigorous denial; they were tolerantly received, but not followed up. Alongside, there were other hasn’t anything to do with numbers, but was aimed at the discussions that eventually had their bearing on the question enthusiasts and radicals who set themselves up as teachers in of the Church and Office and its practical application and opposition to the church and state authorities, claiming that finally led to drastic opposition.29 the Spirit spoke through them, without the written Word, by direct revelation.27 The Doctrine of the Church: Who’s Got the Power? Even with Hoenecke’s concession that the issue warranted further Sadly, the discussion of church and ministry issues quickly study, after  public dialogue seemed to die down, though the degenerated in the early twentieth century, due mainly to practi- dispute no doubt continued to rage behind closed doors. cal concerns arising out of a long and hotly debated case involv- ing Trinity congregation (LCMS), Cincinnati. Ultimately this case was nothing more than one big power struggle. In  a Mr. Schlueter decided to remove his son from Trinity’s school so that the boy could get caught up on his English Koehler, Pieper, and Schaller had all instruction in the public schools. Within a week he was called on been convinced how important it was the carpet by the congregation for his allegedly scandalous con- to do solid, confessional, theological duct. The church demanded that, in addition to an apology, he return his boy to the parochial school at once. When Schlueter work without the burden of refused, he was classed among those who had excommunicated preconceived dogmatic notions. themselves. The synod and district officers of the LCMS, most nb notably Professor F. Pieper, then became involved in the case. They did not approve of the congregation’s action, and the final upshot was that Pastors A. and E. von Schlichten and their con- gregation were suspended by the Central District officials of the Public debate would not resume until the year after Hoenecke’s LCMS. In time the congregation and their pastors would seek death (January , ), with Koehler standing alone, even among refuge in the Wisconsin Synod. Although some intersynodical his Wauwatosa colleagues. In that same year, the new Seminary intrigue did ensue, Wisconsin finally resolved that their applica- director, John Schaller, presented a paper at a mixed conference in tion could not be considered since the congregation was still Milwaukee titled “The One Office of the Pastor.” As can be dealing with the Missouri Synod. deduced from the title, he too concluded that there is one divine- The larger, more fundamental issue involved in this whole fiasco, ly ordained office in the church, the pastor’s office. Again Koehler however, was whether a synod or district had any say in the disci- publicly objected, though recognizing that Schaller had not been plinary actions taken by a member congregation. Many within both party to previous discussions. He argued that a dogmatic state- the Missouri and Wisconsin synods had long held that the local ment—namely, “the pastorate is the only divinely ordained office congregation had absolute autonomy in every matter of doctrine in the church”—was being presumed at the outset, and Scripture and practice and that the synod had no right to tell a member con- passages were being taken out of context and made to support this gregation how to “conduct its business.” They argued that this was “presumed truth.” Walther’s doctrine of the church (congregational autonomy), as opposed to Grabau’s false Romanist view. In order to buttress their Koehler showed that this procedure was a falsely so-called point of view, the argument was advanced that the local congrega- dogmatical method of determining a doctrine by citing doc- tion is the only divinely instituted form of the church. All other trinal statements of the Scriptures without paying attention forms, including synods, are simply human arrangements.30 to the historical context and its way of presenting things.28 Therefore, the Missouri Synod officials had no right to stick their nose in the Cincinnati congregation’s business. Among the debated passages,  Corinthians : was perhaps The case was eventually brought to a conclusion in , almost the most significant. Here Koehler argued that the extensive list of by default. One of the Cincinnati pastors had died in ; the spiritual gifts mentioned in this passage are all “of divine origin, so other was deposed, along with the church council, by the congre- the ‘God hath set some in the church . . .’ is not simply identical gation in . A new council and pastor were quickly elected, with with the institution of the ministry of the Word and Sacraments one of their first orders of business being the lifting of Schlueter’s Matth. :.” God institutes—he sets in place (tivqhmi)—every excommunication. spiritual gift in the church through the working of the Holy Spirit Even though the Cincinnati case was now resolved, the funda- by means of the gospel. In this way, many forms of ministry are mental questions still loomed large in the minds of many: What “divinely instituted,”but not in a legalistic way by means of a legal authority does a synod have in matters of a member congrega-

        tion’s doctrine and practice? Is synod “church”? Are synods that suspension and excommunication were practiced for the divinely instituted or simply man-made arrangements? Sadly, for purpose of cleaning house. Rather, Koehler later wrote, many the ultimate question was this: Who’s got the power? That such a question would even be raised betrayed a very basic mis- Excommunication, finally, rightly understood is not an understanding concerning the nature of the church and its min- enforcement of damnation, but should serve the sinner’s istry. Jesus had to explain to his disciples more than once that the ultimate salvation, by bringing him around, and, failing that, church and its ministry operate very differently from the way the serve the sanctification of the church.34 world thinks (Mt :–). It is not a question of power but of service. Now that lesson needed to be taught once again. Synodical dissension finally led to the calling of a synod-wide pastoral conference, which met at Manitowoc, Wisconsin, on It remained for the three Wauwatosa Seminary men, after September –, . Pieper was asked to present a paper on Synod had washed its hands of the Cincinnati affair in , “The Doctrine of the Church, of Synodical Discipline, and espe- by their joint work to clarify the doctrine of the Church and cially Doctrinal Discipline.” In this paper he made it clear that he the Ministry, as a direct outgrowth of that case.31 believed synodical suspension and congregation excommunica- tion were essentially the same thing. When some protested that a The Wauwatosa storm was about to jolt the Synodical Conference synod could not exercise the Keys, Pieper reportedly retorted, “If with its noisiest episode yet. you stick to that, then we have come to the parting of the ways,” to which someone responded,“We are ready for that right now.”35 Shoulder to Shoulder: The Wauwatosa Gospel Comes of Age By  it was no longer possible to ignore the reformation that had taken place in the theological perspective and approach at the Wauwatosa Seminary. Joh. Ph. Koehler, August Pieper, and John Schaller had all been convinced how important it was to do solid, He conveyed his misgivings about the tra- confessional, theological work without the burden of preconceived ditional, legal understanding of the word dogmatic notions. By  all three men had begun that work in earnest so that Koehler could report that “the three Seminary men “institution” as it related to the New stood shoulder to shoulder.”32 Nowhere did that become more evi- Testament institutions of our Savior. dent than on the pages of the Theologische Quartalschrift between  and . It was in these extraordinary issues that the nb Wauwatosa men publicly hashed out the comprehensive and scrip- tural doctrine of church and ministry, something that had not been done in the same way since the days of Luther. It was at this point that Koehler once again intervened with his But before that “hashing out” could be accomplished with the fresh exegetical approach. In particular he conveyed his misgivings Quartalschrift articles it had to first be completed in the about the traditional, legal understanding of the word “institution” Wauwatosa faculty room. In Koehler’s view, “the Wisconsin posi- as it related to the New Testament institutions of our Savior. He tion was arrived at dogmatically by Pieper and Schaller from the now addressed and answered two fundamental questions at the statement that the Office of the Keys was given to the [Christian] Manitowoc conference: () What has the Lord instituted for his Church and not to the local congregation as such.”Koehler, on the New Testament church? and () What is the nature of our Savior’s other hand, institutions in the New Testament? First, as to what our Lord Jesus instituted, Koehler concluded emphasized exegetically that in the Scriptures no mention is on the basis of his exegetical examination of Matthew chapters  made of an ‘institution,’ which might serve as a basis for and  that a synod of Christians established for the purpose of [Missouri’s] external, legalistic claims. . . . There is not proclaiming the gospel was as much a church or congregation as enough said in Scripture to formulate a Missourian doctrine was a localized congregation of Christians established to do that of the local congregation and the local ministry [as being the same work. In addition, every grouping of Christians had the only divinely instituted forms].33 right and responsibility to use the keys.

Pieper’s first public attempt to take up the question came in the The present-day distinction between the local congregation form of a  Quartalschrift article entitled “Lording It over and the synod has no place in the Lord’s discourse at Matth. Others in the Church.”In Koehler’s opinion, Pieper’s whole line of . . . . Moreover, the contention regarding the present dis- reasoning still betrayed a dogmatic approach, especially in his dis- tinction between local congregation and synod, to wit: that tinguishing between synodical suspension and congregational the former has the purpose of spiritual edification, the latter excommunication, as if synodical suspension was based upon that of outward business, is a fallacy.36 manmade constitutions and excommunication upon Scripture. Koehler concluded that “Prof. Pieper still had the idea that a synod And what is the nature of our Savior’s New Testament institu- is not of divine ordinance like a local congregation.” Koehler also tions? Are they legal or evangelical institutions? Koehler questioned what he perceived to be Pieper’s emphasis on the idea answered that

 

the Lord’s parting statements instituting the ministry of ously, that the pastoral office is not the only divinely instituted the Word and Sacraments, Matth. :– and Mark office in the church. Schaller maintained, :– . . . [are] not the creation of a certain office, attached to certain ordained persons, or a distinct clerical If . . . we want to gain a correct understanding of the forms order, or of any specified forms of carrying out that min- of the ministry as we find them in the church of all times, we istry to the entire world.”37 have to free ourselves from the thought that only official public proclaiming is gospel preaching. Instead, various forms of gospel ministry are instituted —that is, Schaller suggested that set in place—by the Holy Spirit through the gospel. Koehler later recalled the reaction to his presentation, particu- this false view betrays itself immediately when one simply larly that of his two Wauwatosa colleagues. When August Pieper identifies the ministry [Predigtamt] with the pastoral min- voiced his misgivings, Koehler said: “As long as you and Schaller istry [Pfarramt], even when the clear presentation of do not clearly declare yourselves for my [exegetical] interpreta- thoughts demands something else. tion, you shall not be able to maintain your dogmatic position.” Based on exegetical studies, all the Wauwatosa men now maintained Finally, Koehler reports, “Schaller and Pieper got busy then with their series of articles on the subject.”38 that the ministry, that is, the commission to preach the Among the most important Quartalschrift articles written at this gospel, is given to every Christian; that at conversion not time to expound the Wauwatosa approach was August Pieper’s only the ability but also the impetus for this preaching is January  critique of Walther’s book Die Stimme unserer Kirche implanted in him; and that the gospel by its very nature as a in der Frage von Kirche und Amt (The Voice of Our Church on the message presupposes this preaching activity and at the same Question of Church and Ministry). While granting the strengths of time by the effect it has guarantees it will occur.42 Walther’s presentation, Pieper also pointed out that there was “room for misunderstanding the fathers or Walther himself, and Schaller correctly emphasized the service aspect of ministry, that even Walther himself misunderstands at times.”39 Pieper con- whether public or private, when he suggested that the word cluded in typical Wauwatosa fashion: Predigtdienst (the service of preaching), better than Predigtamt (the office of preaching), describes the servant attitude that The third generation of pastors since Walther are now in Christians will have as they fulfill the Great Commission.43 the ministry. To us applies the proverb, ‘What you have Finally, Schaller also asserted that any and all New Testament inherited from your fathers, acquire anew in order to pos- forms were of a different sort than those of the Old Testament. In sess it.’ . . . We need to appropriate the doctrines of church other words, all New Testament forms were not of a legal but of and ministry once again with a fresh start through personal an evangelical kind, set in place (instituted) entirely by the Holy and thorough study.”40 Spirit through the working of the gospel in the hearts, minds, and lives of Christians. As a result, the Wauwatosa men declared that In the April  Quartalschrift article “The Doctrine of the all New Testament forms of ministry are divinely instituted but Church and Its Marks Applied to the Synod,”Pieper continued his not legally-mandated or coerced, as such. study, writing that [God] bestows on this church ‘gifts’ and assures them that wherever on earth, be it in Wauwatosa or Asia Minor, there they have been appointed by the Holy Spirit. For whatever are two or more believers, there is a congregation; a people of the Christian congregation decides upon to further the God is present whether or not they have united in an out- preaching of the gospel it does at the instigation and under ward church organization, whether they have formed one the guidance of the Spirit of Jesus Christ.44 outward church organization or ....Not the external asso- ciation makes the true congregation, but the faith of a number E. C. Fredrich wrote that the of people combined in some way. three Wauwatosa teachers had not set themselves an easy task in this effort to change traditional thinking. It took He finally concluded, many one-on-one discussions, many conference papers and In short, the synodical assembly has the infallible marks of debates, and many articles in the Quartalschrift before their the church in the proper sense; therefore it is church in the position became a generally held position. Some never strict sense of the Word. . . . And the synod itself is church agreed. . . . The strongest and longest opposition came from just as certainly. . . . The Wisconsin Synod is church in the the Synodical Conference brethren in the Missouri Synod.45 strict sense of the word.41 The Wauwatosa Gospel was about to face its stiffest challenge yet. John Schaller also entered the fray, particularly with his signal treatise on the ministry entitled “The Origin and Development of The Beginning of the End: The Wauwatosa-St. Louis debates the New Testament Ministry,” first published in the – The Wisconsin and Missouri synods always had an interesting seminary catalog. Here Schaller concluded, as Koehler had previ- relationship during their years together in the Synodical

       

Conference. Even previous to their  declaration of fellowship when compared to Adolph Hoenecke’s earlier Dogmatik, with and the  formation of the Synodical Conference, the two syn- which they heartily agreed. ods had been rivals, with Missouri serving in the role of the dom- Three issues in particular troubled the St. Louis men about the ineering big brother and Wisconsin the pesky little one. There is Wauwatosa approach. First, they believed that in Wauwatosa’s no question that Missouri had had an overwhelming influence presentation of this doctrine “the divine arrangement of the pub- upon Wisconsin, yet Missouri seemed always to sense an air of lic pastoral office is pushed too much into the background, even ingratitude—perhaps rightly so—on the part of Wisconsin, espe- openly denied,” although admitting that the Wauwatosa men did cially when Missouri’s friends to the north would throw doctrinal “indeed also speak of a divine origin of the office, and indeed in a flies in the ointment, almost as if to question Missouri’s Lutheran preeminent sense over against all other callings, but this only after orthodoxy. For this reason alone there can be little doubt that the all manner of detours.”The St. Louis faculty strongly asserted that Wauwatosa theologians were a great source of angst in the the office of the pastoral ministry (Pfarramt) was a legal com- St. Louis faculty room, leading to an almost spiteful suspicion of mand and regulation of God to be enforced within the church, the Wauwatosa Gospel and its principles. adding that “one must not be frightened or permit himself to be Nowhere did this rivalry and suspicion become more apparent terrified by ‘legalistic’ or ‘ceremonial laws,’ etc. One could with as and intense than in the hotly-contested Wauwatosa-St. Louis much right charge that concerning both Sacraments.” Still, the debates of the s and s concerning the issues of church and Missourians had to admit that they were “indeed able to offer no ministry. Fredrich quips that “attacks from Missouri leaders were word of specific institution”51 which set apart the ministry of the launched almost before the ink had dried on the Quartalschrift congregational pastor (Pfarramt) as a specially and legally binding pages.”46 Nevertheless, the first formal protest did not take place form of gospel ministry within the church. until the  Synodical Conference gathering in Milwaukee, when the St. Louis faculty sought an interview with their Wauwatosa counterparts. One session took place during the morning of August  in the Trinity (LCMS) parish hall, the other, As far as the Wauwatosa faculty was con- in a Wauwatosa classroom on the evening of August . Representing the Missouri Synod were Professors Franz Pieper, cerned, there was one fundamental issue George Metzger, Ludwig Feuerbringer, Friedrich Bente, and that needed addressing, namely, “What is William Dau. The Wisconsin contingent included Koehler, Pieper, meant by the term divinely instituted?” and Schaller, along with Pastors Gustav Bergemann and William Dalmann. nb Koehler briefly summarized the days’ events in his History of the Wisconsin Synod, stating that The second area of concern dealt with the meaning of the term the Wauwatosa men mostly replied to objections to their “local congregation” (Ortsgemeinde). The Missourians asserted personal statements. . . . The upshot, however, was that there that “the local congregation [within a fixed geographical area] is was no agreement, both in regard to the formulation of the the divinely-willed outward form of the Church, while you assert doctrine and the method, as well, by which it is to be derived many outward forms on the Church: synods, conferences, yes, two from the Scriptures.47 or three Christians on trips, etc.” They went on to suggest that by taking such an approach “the concept of the local congregation is The extant minutes of the August  meeting report that August destroyed” by the Wauwatosa faculty, adding, Pieper presented six theses representing the Wauwatosa position, concluding that we believe that here lies the real basis of the difference, as indeed the treatment of the whole matter in the proof for the special divine institution and moralistic oblig- Quartalschrift has been developed from this original point ation of the Apostolic episcopacy . . . is impossible and vain. [namely, the Cincinnati case].52 Whoever maintains this must be able to point out a clear and specific word for it or prove that it is contained in either the The third objection was that the Wauwatosa men placed “various Law or the Gospel.48 synodical offices, etc., on the same plane with the pastoral office” in terms of their divine institution. The St. Louis men stated that When Koehler and Schaller assented to their colleague’s presenta- tion, the St. Louis men charged that “the Wauwatosa men denied with the exception of the ministry of the Word to “those the divine institution of the pastorate.”49 without,” that is, the ministry of evangelization, we find the Finally, a written protest was formulated and sent by the St. Louis office and the work of the ministry spoken of only in con- faculty on August , , against various statements of the three nection with the local congregation.53 elder Wauwatosa professors. The Missourians were confused, stat- ing “we do not really know what is public doctrine [concerning Only the congregational pastorate is divinely mandated; all other church and ministry] in the honorable Wisconsin Synod at this offices in the church are simply human arrangements and are to time.”50 They observed a difference in recent Quartalschrift articles be considered auxiliary.

 

The two faculties met again on December –, ,in membership, on the other hand, is not commanded; synods are Chicago, over the Christmas break. Koehler would later reflect at manmade and therefore not divinely instituted. In the same way, length about the happenings of those acrimonious days in his the office of pastor is the one divinely mandated form of the pub- Reminiscences. Eventually the two faculties formulated what lic ministry, an imperative to be obeyed. All other forms of the became known as the Wauwatosa Theses. August Pieper would ministry are simply human inventions. In his Christian Dogmatics comment in : “With the common adoption of certain theses Franz Pieper asserted that “the formation of Christian congrega- in  the discussions were essentially concluded, even though tions, and membership in them, is not a human, but a divine unanimity was not attained in all points.”54 Yet in a  essay pub- mandate.”The same held true for the office of local pastor. “Here, lished in The Faithful Word outlining the Wauwatosa-St. Louis dis- too,” Pieper argues, “we are dealing with imperatives, therefore cussions, Harold Romoser challenged Pieper’s contention. with a divine arrangement in the sense of a divine command.”60 Romoser claimed that “the issues were met and settled,” but that The St. Louis faculty was adamant that the local congregation and the Wauwatosa faculty quickly reneged on the agreement. He the local pastorate are both legally binding, divine institutions of points an accusing finger especially at the  publication of the New Testament. All other forms in the church are human Koehler’s Kirchengeschichte as the “deal breaker” since, in his opin- inventions, brought about apart from divine mandate. Many ion, it included an “endorsement of [Johann] Hoefling’s position within Wisconsin concurred without objection. (p. )55 and [a] repudiation (p. ) of the plain statements of the  Theses.”56 Romoser, though, offers no evidence that the fundamental issues had truly been resolved with the drafting of the Wauwatosa Theses, since their wording tended to be just as ambiguous as that contained in the later Thiensville Theses, Schaller took umbrage at the suggestion drawn up in .57 that God has legalistically commanded Franz Pieper too seemed to blame Koehler for this latest impasse. When the two met at the  Missouri Synod conven- certain outward forms of gospel min- tion that next summer in Milwaukee, Pieper stopped Koehler in istry, particularly the local congregation the corridor and said: and the office of the parish pastor. In your Church History you touched upon the dispute nb between our faculties. By that, you made it impossible for us to recommend your History. We shall point out that the local pastor’s office (Pfarramt) has existed since the time of the Ironically, and contrary to popular opinion, the Wauwatosa Patriarchs and before. faculty agreed that the local congregation and local pastorate are divine institutions. Nevertheless, it was their understanding of the Koehler calmly explained: word “institution” that was far different and decidedly more evan- A correct historical perception (Auffasung), of course, is not gelical than the one commonly held by their Missouri counter- determined by the sale of the book, but is guided by the parts. So different, in fact, was their outlook that it ultimately led truth. The dispute between us is commonly known among to an impasse. More importantly, the faculties’ disagreement on Lutherans. That is why I had to touch upon it. The manner the meaning of the word “institution” for New Testament of presentation, I’m sure, you will not contest. Christians uncovered an even more fundamental difference of opinion on and approach to Article  of the Formula of Concord, which deals with the so-called third use of the law and its applica- Koehler later recalled, “To date [], Missouri has failed to pro- tion to the Christian life. The St. Louis faculty held a traditional, duce the proof of Franz Pieper’s assertion regarding the antiquity dogmatic opinion, while the Wauwatosa men would in time be of the Pfarramt.” 58 He never saw Franz Pieper again. charged with antinomianism61 because they did not approach the COMING IN OUT OF THE RAIN: ATTEMPT law’s third use in the traditional, Melanchthonian way that was TO ROOT OUT LEGALISM typical within Lutheran orthodoxy after the time of Luther. This would quickly become the principal topic of discussion. As far as the Wauwatosa faculty was concerned, there was one Between  and , the Wauwatosa trio set out to enlarge fundamental issue in the church and ministry debate that need- upon their evangelical perspective in a series of Quartalschrift arti- ed addressing, namely, “What is meant by the term divinely insti- cles. In particular, they now dealt extensively with that most tuted?” In his History of the Wisconsin Synod Koehler states it beloved of Lutheran subjects, the proper distinction between law quite plainly: “The real issue was the definition of the term ‘insti- and gospel, with special attention being given to the third use of tution’ as applied to the church and the office of the ministry in the law. These Quartalschrift articles, containing vintage their concrete form.”59 Wauwatosa Gospel, would ultimately become the catalyst for the The St. Louis faculty held a legalistically inclined position. They deepest rift yet between St. Louis and Wauwatosa. The Wauwatosa argued that Christians are conscience-bound to form and join Gospel would now face a most vehement rejection, eventually to local congregations because they are the strict, legal command of be whisked away from Synodical Conference consciousness by the God, the only divinely mandated form of the church. Synod winds of legalism. Simply put, the gospel of Christian freedom

        was unwittingly surrendered by many, only to be replaced by a requires nothing of us, but which as an effectual power produces in legalistic bent that would have lasting repercussions on the and on us what God wills.” In human language we have only one Synodical Conference as a whole. verb form to communicate these two different ideas: the impera- The first article in this law-gospel series is perhaps the crown tive. Linguistically they seem completely alike, yet, as expressions jewel of Joh. Ph. Koehler’s Quartalschrift contributions,“Gesetzlich of God’s will, they are completely different. Wesen unter uns” (“Legalism among Us”), published in the last number of  and the first two numbers of . As Koehler The one kind simply expresses what ought to happen informs us in his introduction, this article was written as a direct according to God’s will, without guaranteeing that it will result of “a remark made at a larger mixed [Synodical Conference] happen. The other kind expresses a creative will of God and conference,” which led him and others to believe that the “term is the effective Word of God itself, which has the inherent legalism was not generally understood.” 62 power to establish, make, and create what the imperative One prominent example of legalism in the Lutheran Church designates as the will of God.65 that Koehler instantly spotted involved the doctrine of church and ministry, particularly Missouri’s insistence that the local congre- As an example of God’s creative will, Schaller used Jesus’ Great gation and the office of the parish pastor are instituted by means Commission to preach the gospel in word and sacrament. of divine law. Koehler wrote: That is also a categorical imperative, in its outward form no At issue here are the association of Christians in congrega- different from the command to love enemies. But here from tions and synods, the conduct of officials and congregation the very outset it is not the intent of God that this command members, of congregations and synods toward one another should work death, . . . but through this very Word God . . . . We need hardly pause to prove that it is the old Adam wants to create and produce precisely what the Word itself that also in this area engenders legalism. says. . . . God by this command sets in motion the activity of preaching the gospel.66 Koehler had in mind the formulation of “church laws” where God makes no laws, especially when it comes to the forms of gospel Based on this understanding, Schaller took umbrage at the ministry. He conceded that suggestion that God has legalistically commanded certain out- ward forms of gospel ministry, particularly the local congrega- when Christians assemble to do what flows spontaneously tion and the office of the parish pastor, binding his church to from the gospel, namely, to speak about the great acts of these forms in all places for all time.67 He finally pointed out that God, then the human circumstances at once produce certain any attempt to foist such commands upon the church, passing limitations with regard to persons, time, place and them off as divine law, is pure legalism. In truth, the Holy Spirit actions. . . . The requirement for external regulations is works among Christians through the gospel in a very different inherent in the organic character of human fellowship, and manner. Yes, God has instituted the local congregation and the the regulations take form through human intercourse. local pastorate, but not by means of the law. They have been instituted (that is, set in place and set in motion) along with all But he also added, in opposition to Missouri’s legalistic approach, other forms in the Christian church by the Holy Spirit through means of the gospel. so far as the gospel is concerned, we would need no modes August Pieper followed up his colleagues’ masterful articles and regulations at all beyond Word and sacrament. . . . For with three masterpieces of his own: “The Law Is not Made for a any other kind of modes and regulations [such as the local Righteous Man,”“The Difference between the Reformed and the congregation and parish pastor] no such [legal] institutions Lutheran Interpretation of the So-Called Third Use of the Law,” appear [in Scripture]; to try to derive divine ordinances from and “Are There Legal Regulations in the New Testament?” all pub- historical events and examples in the life of the apostolic lished in consecutive issues in . church is inadvisable.”63 In the first-mentioned article, Pieper stated that he would “treat a question often aired, but never, at any time, treated exhaustively John Schaller further elucidated the Wauwatosa concerns and among us. This question concerns the meaning of the law for the approach with his  article entitled “God’s Will and Christian.” After an extensive exegetical study, particularly of Command.” Schaller began by positing this question: “How does  Timothy :, Pieper drew the conclusion that there is no law for the Christian as a child of God stand in relation to the so-called the just.“We are free and released from the law as a doctrine and rule legal will of God?”64 He made the following, typically of conduct, because we have all been taught by God through faith.” 68 Wauwatosan observation about the Synodical Conference: “In Here Pieper wrote the “magic words”that were bound to stir up spite of all the correct phraseology in use among us, we are still far controversy in the Synodical Conference, arguing that the away from the point where the correct point of view on this mat- Christian was free from the law in all respects, even as a rule or ter actually rules in public preaching.” guide, the so-called third use of the law. Pieper’s words would Schaller went on to explain the difficulty when discussing seem to be a direct attack upon Article  of the Formula of Scriptural “imperatives,” distinguishing “between a command of Concord, which concerned the third use of the law and was writ- God which we are to carry out and one of his commands which ten to oppose the antinomians. But Pieper addressed the question

  he knew would be forthcoming from his critics. His answer is power of justifying faith in the gospel, worked by the Holy Spirit. both interesting and important to note. Pieper asserted: Pieper first asked whether the Lutheran Church was wrong to Only because of the old man does the believer also need the subscribe to FC , then he answered emphatically: law as a taskmaster of the flesh in the interest of the spir- it. . . . All truly Christian, positive action, however, proceeds No, the church is right. The Confession teaches that not only from faith itself, which receives from itself guidance and the “third,” but all “uses” of the law are still needed by the impulse. . . . the law always serves him only to convict him of Christian: the law as mirror, rule, coercion, and punishment. sin. That which is positively good is only a work of the free- And that also is right. The church teaches the use of the law dom of faith in the Spirit.75 by the Christian because of the flesh which still adheres to him and as applicable to it.69 In the last of the three articles in this series, “Are There Legal Regulations in the New Testament?” Pieper finally applied these Nevertheless, Pieper also suggested some lack of clarity and abstract ideas to concrete examples of legalism he perceived in the preciseness on the part of the Article  formulators when church. In particular he now targeted the Missouri opinion that defining the law, especially as St. Paul presents it, stating that their certain forms of church and ministry have been strictly com- “definitions ignore the characteristics which the law without manded by divine law. Such a view was incongruent with exception possesses over against the sinner in all his activities and Christian liberty, Pieper argued. accomplishments. For it confronts him as an alien will, coming Pieper now returned to the fundamental question that separat- from without.”70 Pieper suggested that it is more accurate “if one ed the Wauwatosa and St. Louis faculties on the question of church takes the term ‘law’ in the sense we outlined above, according to and ministry, namely, what is meant by the term “divinely institut- which the ‘Thou shalt’ belongs to the essence of the law.”71 In ed”? Is it a legal or evangelical concept? As Koehler and Schaller other words, Pieper argued, the law by its very nature pushes, had previously, Pieper now warned against a misunderstanding of prods, coerces and punishes sinners; it does not and cannot guide “divine imperatives” found in the New Testament, particularly as the Old Adam (Rom :). On the other hand, the law has noth- they relate to the preaching of the gospel and the administration of ing to say to the Christian as new man at all, even as a guide.72 the sacraments. While Pieper agreed that “the preaching of the The new man is guided by the Spirit, not the law (Gal :;Rom gospel is the one great outward ordinance of the New Testament” :;  Tim :). Pieper boldly concluded that “it is false in every and that “the gospel, Baptism, and the Lord’s Supper are indeed way and contrary to the clear word of Scripture and also of our outward ordinances in the New Testament,” he pointed out that Confession, to say: The Christian as Christian, as a believer, is still under the law, at least in its use as a rule of conduct.” He strong- the question is not whether they are outward but whether ly suggested: they are legal regulations, ordinances of a legal character, having the same nature, the same effect, and the same pur- We must not form the habit of using this manner of speech, pose as the outward regulations of the old covenant. All this not even if it were found in some explanation of the cate- is plainly and categorically to be denied. chism, in a schoolbook, a synodical report, a volume of dog- matics, or elsewhere. Such talk not only diametrically Pieper argued that opposes our chapter but the entire Scripture, creating con- fusion. . . . It mixes law and gospel, falsifies the gospel, and as legal arrangements, the preaching of the gospel, Baptism, again makes it to be law.73 and the Lord’s Supper would be powerless, impotent ordi- nances not imparting salvation but killing and damning us; In his next article, “The Difference between the Reformed and under them we would be frightened and yearn for other, new the Lutheran Interpretation of the So-Called Third Use of the ordinances which would give us salvation. Law,” Pieper addressed his critics because his previous article elicited one letter “that did not agree and one that expressed hes- He finally concluded, “The proclamation of the gospel, itation regarding a main point.” Here he warned anyone who Baptism, and the Lord’s Supper are not legal but evangelical would listen about the dangerous temptation of taking a arrangements.”76 Reformed view of the law, in which The same held true for the ministry of the church. As the Wauwatosa theologians had repeatedly asserted, there are no the law applies to the believer as such, while Lutherans declare “words of institution” for specific ministerial forms such as the that the believer is free from the coercion (coactio) and threat local congregation and the local pastorate, to which the church (comminatio) of the law in that he as a believer voluntarily was bound by divine law. Instead, Pieper wrote, (sua sponte) does what is God-pleasing. Consequently, he does not need the external prod of a demanding law stand- The concept the ministry of the church embraces absolutely ing over him.74 all forms of the administration of Word and sacrament, while the congregational pastorate designates only a specific Scripture approaches our Christian lives of sanctification in a form of the public administration of the means of grace. Not much different manner, pointing to and relying solely on the to distinguish these two concepts . . . and imply to identify

       

them with one another means confusing everything and smoothly. Yes, use the law for the maintenance of outward peace arriving at the ill-boding error that actually only the one and tranquility! Such was the thinking of legalists then, and such is form, the congregational pastorate, has been instituted by the thinking of legalists today. Such is the thinking of us all by God, whereas every other form is of human origin. As soon nature, since sinners are by nature legalistic; they respond to the as the two concepts are clearly distinguished as genus and law. Simply put: trusting the gospel to produce proper and God- species, and what Scripture actually says is carefully noted, pleasing fruits of faith in the fullness of time is risky business in this everything becomes clear and plain.77 world, especially when dealing with sinful people. It will not always work in just the way or as quickly as we may want or expect. In It is the same with the doctrine of the local congregation. most cases, the law will certainly get more immediate and more There are various forms of the church . . . . Wherever, quantifiable results. therefore, two or three are gathered in Christ’s name, there is the visible church; there Christ is in their midst; there is absolutely all the power of the church, including also all power to exercise it. . . . The power of the church does not depend on its outward form, nor does the right to exercise In the last of the three articles in this it; this lies in the essence of the church. The only concern series, “Are There Legal Regulations in is that everything be done decently and in order ( Cor :). . . . After the Lord gave the church the gospel and the New Testament?” Pieper finally the sacraments and his Holy Spirit, he left all outward applied these abstract ideas to concrete forms and arrangements, everything of a ceremonial examples of legalism he perceived nature, to the free determination of the church governed by the Spirit.78 in the church. nb So then, Pieper himself queried, “the church or a congregation could perhaps do away with the present congregational pastorate and introduce a Quaker type of proclaiming the Word?” To both these questions Pieper and his colleagues answered unequivocal- But the Wauwatosa men would have us ask ourselves: Is the ly: Absolutely not. The Wauwatosa men stressed again and again, goal really immediate and quantifiable outward, earthly results? as Paul had nineteen centuries earlier: Just because Christians are Pieper granted that if we use the law to motivate our lives of “good free from the law does not mean that they will use their freedom works,” we may get more accomplished in this sinful world. But, as license, to do as they please. Instead, through the gospel the he countered,“that we would thereby be richer in real good works Holy Spirit leads Christians to make use of the best and most cannot be proved, for all good works are good only insofar as they beneficial forms. proceed from faith itself freely and not forced by the law.” He reminded us that the solution to spiritual malaise does not consist While we have no explicit, simple, legal, or evangelical regu- in our taking on the legalistic spirit of the Reformed. Instead, as lation for any one of them, all possible forms of the office [of Lutherans, we the ministry of the gospel] are not purely of human but of divine origin. We human beings do not govern the church; apply the law in its sharpness as a mirror to our lazy flesh, when we do govern it, it regularly becomes ill-governed; but that we allow ourselves to be judged and condemned by it, the Lord, the Holy Spirit governs it, and he governs it in a . . . and that we flee again to grace and from its fullness and proper and wholesome manner.”79 fervor, which surpasses all human thought, acquire for our- selves new, free, spiritual willpower.80 In other words, all forms of the gospel ministry are divinely insti- tuted, that is, set in place and set in motion by the Holy Spirit Sadly, the Wauwatosa plea for a more evangelically-centered doc- working in the hearts of believers through faith in the gospel. The trine and practice within the Synodical Conference went mostly Spirit leads and guides the church to make use of the best forms unheeded in its day and is mostly strange and unfamiliar to not by means of divine law but by means of the gospel of grace. Lutheran ears today. The rainstorm of the Wauwatosa Gospel All forms in the church—indeed, all fruits of faith produced by pelted the Synodical Conference for almost thirty years, but most Christians—are divinely instituted (Phil :), brought about by simply chose to come in out of the rain. the Holy Spirit through the gospel. They are not our legal duty per The Synodical Conference would survive for almost another se but an evangelical compulsion. thirty years, but already new storm clouds were quickly forming Such evangelical pronouncements, however, made others ner- in the early s. This new storm, however, would not water vous within the Synodical Conference. They thought, perhaps and nourish the Synodical Conference fields with the truth of unwittingly, that proclaiming such absolute freedom in the the gospel, as the Wauwatosa shower had. Instead those same gospel—as the Wauwatosa men were doing—would surely bring fields would now be stripped and uprooted, and the gentle rains about a disorderly mess. Much better to make rules and laws to from Wauwatosa would only be a distant, mostly-forgotten keep people in line and to keep the church’s business running memory. LOGIA

 

NOTES . Koehler, for instance, was taken to task by certain synodical lead- . Koehler, History, . ers for a Theologische Quartalschrift article he wrote on the temptation . Ibid., . of Christ (,no.), now found in translation in The Wauwatosa Theology . Koehler, Reminiscences, . (Milwaukee: Northwestern Publishing House, ), : –. Koehler . Koehler, History, . gives details of his interview with these men in his History of the . Ibid., . Wisconsin Synod (Sauk Rapids, MN: Sentinel Publishing Co. for the . Ibid., . Protestant Conference, ), . . Ibid., . . The Concordia Lutheran Conference charges the Wauwatosa the- . Koehler, Reminiscences, . ologians, particularly Joh. Ph. Koehler, with false doctrine. One page on . Koehler, History, . In a later article entitled “Luther’s Doctrine their website reads: “To this day in Wisconsin Synod theology, Dr. Adolf of Church and Ministry” (reprinted in The Wauwatosa Theology, vol. ), Hoenecke is avoided like the plague and their new ‘historical-linguistic- Pieper would write that the Wauwatosa men “do not consider Walther’s exegetical method’ of approach to Scripture, introduced by the Koehler, identification of the public preaching office with the pastoral office as a Pieper, Schaller faculty shortly after Hoenecke’s death, is practiced. This happy one. From this some people who have not thought or studied method is the prime basis for their ‘new’ doctrine on Church and independently have drawn the conclusion that the public office, that is Ministry, and it can easily infect other clear teachings of Scripture as the office of the Word which is transmitted from the church to an indi- well” (www.concordialutheranconf.com/c&mcatechism.html). vidual person, and the pastoral office are equal and exchangeable con- . John Ph. Koehler, “The Importance of the Historical Disciplines cepts and that therefore only that form of the public preaching office for the American Lutheran Church of the Present,” in The Wauwatosa which we call the pastoral office is of divine origin” (). Theology, : –. . Quoted in Edward Fredrich, “The Scriptural Basis and Historical . Ibid., . Development of WELS Doctrine of Ministry,” (WELS Ministry . Ibid., . Compendium, ), . . John Ph. Koehler, Reminiscences (). Concordia Historical . August Pieper, “The Doctrine of the Church and Its Marks Institute: Koehler Family Collection, . Applied to the Synod,” in The Wauwatosa Theology, : , . . Franz Pieper, Christian Dogmatics (St. Louis: Concordia . John Schaller, “The Origin and Development of the New Publishing House, ), : –. It is interesting to note that in his Testament Ministry,” in The Wauwatosa Theology, : . Commentary on the Gospel of John (:), Koehler critically observed: . Ibid., . “The sentimental idea that Mary had no other children, current in the . Ibid., . Lutheran church too, is rather a relic of the early church’s Mariolatry and . Fredrich, Wisconsin Synod Lutherans, . Roman sacramentalism than a product of sound exegesis and the his- . Fredrich, “WELS Doctrine of Ministry,” . torical appreciation of marriage at the time of Christ” (Faith-Life ,no. . Koehler, History, .  [October, ]: ). Could it be Koehler that Franz Pieper is referring . Quoted in Jon Ladner, “The Church and Ministry Debate to when he rebukes those with a “more delicate ‘exegetical conscience’”? between the Missouri and Wisconsin Synods” (Essay delivered to the St. . Koehler, “Historical Disciplines,” . Croix Conference of the Minnesota District of the WELS, June , ), . Koehler, Reminiscences, , . . . Armin Schuetze, The Synodical Conference: Ecumenical Endeavor . Ibid, . (Milwaukee: Northwestern Publishing House, ), . . “Basic Documents in the Church and Ministry Discussions,” The . Koehler, History, . Faithful Word , no.  (February ): . . Ibid., . . Ibid., , –, . . Wauwatosa Theology, : –. . Ibid., . . Koehler, Reminiscences, . Pieper’s comment is also found sum- . Ibid., –. marized in Koehler’s History, . . August Pieper, “Concerning the Doctrine of the Church and of . Koehler, History, . Its Ministry, with Special Reference to the Synod and Its Discipline,” in . Koehler, Reminiscences, . The Wauwatosa Theology : . . Koehler, History, . . Erlangen professor Johann Hoefling (–) opined that, . Ibid., . while the ministry of the gospel carried out by the priesthood of all . Leigh Jordahl, “John Philipp Koehler, the Wauwatosa Theology believers is divinely instituted, the public ministry as established by the and the Wisconsin Synod,” Introduction to The History of the Wisconsin congregation is of human origin “developed from inner necessity.”Most Synod (Sauk Rapids, Minnesota: Sentinel Publishing Co. for the of all, Hoefling was concerned not to make rules where God made no Protestant Conference, ), xxii. rules. It is true that Koehler and the other Wauwatosa theologians were . Koehler, History, . also wary of introducing divine commands where no divine commands . Ibid., . existed, but they also stressed that the public ministry and its different . Ibid., . Koehler goes on to comment: “The last three sentences forms were all divinely instituted by the Holy Spirit through the gospel. are quoted practically verbatim, in translation, excepting that the Finally, the definition of the word “institution” became the real sticking German ‘Schuster und Schneider’ conveys something of a slight (which point between the St. Louis and Wauwatosa faculties. the English doesn’t).” . Harold Romoser, “The Church and Ministry,” The Faithful Word . Ibid., . , nos.  and  (August–November, ): . . C. F. W.Walther,“The True Visible Church,” Essays for the Church . Koehler viewed the  Thiensville Theses as a compromise that (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, ), : . accomplished nothing because they use the “weasel”-words “It is God’s . Koehler, History, , ; Reminiscences, . will and order.” In his History of the Wisconsin Synod Koehler posed the . Ibid., . question: What is meant by “will” and “order”? Does that mean legal . Ibid., . “command” or evangelical “pleasure”? Does that mean legal “ordinance” . Ibid., . or evangelical “arrangement”? Koehler commented that these theses “are . Ibid., , . externalistic, couched in the terms of law, in that they are concerned . This whole argument is directly analogous to the discussion of about jurisdictions, when, of all things, the doctrines of the Church, the the church’s ministry, concerning which many stated that the only Ministry and the Office of the Keys cry for a presentation from the divinely instituted form of the ministry was the pastorate. All other Gospel point of view” (). The real issue separating these two faculties forms of ministry are simply human arrangements. was this: Are New Testament divine institutions law or gospel? St. Louis

        said law; Wauwatosa said gospel. Both the Wauwatosa and Thiensville ful enough in their definition of the so-called third use of the law in FC Theses are simply ambiguous on this question.  (see “Legalism,” –). . Koehler, Reminiscences, –. . Ibid., . . Koehler, History, . . The Wauwatosa faculty was of the distinct opinion that even the . F. Pieper, Christian Dogmatics, : , . command given to Adam in the Garden was not “law,” as that term is . The charge of antinomianism is still made today. For examples, normally used and understood in Scripture. Pieper writes: “The concept see Erling Teigen, “The Universal Priesthood in the Lutheran ‘law’ did not exist prior to sin, because that thing did not exist which con- Confessions,” L , no.  (Reformation ): ; Harold Romoser, fronted man with demands from without, with threats, and with destruc- “Church and Ministry,” –; and Neil Hilton, “Church and Ministry,” tion by God’s moral will. Men blithely inject the commandment, not to The Faithful Word ,no. (Summer ): –. eat of the tree of knowledge, at this point. . . . But it was no demand, . Joh. Ph. Koehler, “Legalism among Us,” in The Wauwatosa made on unwilling persons, as the law is since sin entered the world. It Theology, : . Emphasis here, and in all future quotations, in the orig- was a special commandment, given to willing observers” (Ibid., –). inal. The law is not intended or necessary for the new man in any way. See . Ibid., . also Koehler, “Legalism,” . . John Schaller, “God’s Will and Command,” in The Wauwatosa . Ibid., –. Theology, : . . August Pieper, “The Difference between the Reformed and the . Ibid., –. Lutheran Interpretation of the So-Called Third Use of the Law,” in The . Ibid., . Wauwatosa Theology, : , . . Ibid., –. . Ibid., –. . August Pieper, “The Law Is Not Made for a Righteous Man,” in . August Pieper, “Are There Legal Regulations in the New The Wauwatosa Theology, : , –. Testament,” in The Wauwatosa Theology, : –.  Ibid., –. . Ibid., –.  Ibid., . Koehler, too, suggested that it was more precise to . Ibid., –. reserve the term law “for the legalistic conception, for the sake of dis- . Ibid., , . tinction, exactly following Paul’s example” (“Legalism,” ; emphasis in . August Pieper, “Difference between the Reformed and the the original). He also intimated that the formulators had not been care- Lutheran Interpretation,”  n. Inklings

Even though I have “already read all those books,” no, you may not have my theolocigal library for the day school and rummage sale!

R

“It is not many books that make men learned . . . but it is a good book frequently read.” Martin Luther

j

Worldview: The History of a Concept. By David K. Naugle, with look diligently for evidence of any truth that Christians can use to Foreword by Arthur F. Holmes. Grand Rapids: William B. their advantage in confronting unbelief. This is exactly the effective Eerdmans Publishing Company, . and useful tactic used by the Reformed apologists mentioned in chapter o and following in the book. h Naugle is professor of philosophy at Dallas Baptist In the last three chapters of Worldview, Naugle offers his own University. In this diligent historical overview of Weltanschauung personal reflections. “Theological Reflections” (chapter ) (worldview), the author’s goal is to show how worldview has shows that every worldview has presuppositions that are inher- been treated and expressed from Immanuel Kant to the present ent within the person. Naugle gives Christians a positive day. In the first two chapters there is ample information to help encouragement in worldview conceptualizing, noting that, in the reader understand the history of this within recent these postmodern times, tolerance allows us to reestablish or Christianity. These chapters lay the presuppositional ground- reclaim a biblical worldview for the sake of the gospel. As work for the rest of the book and provide information suitable Augustine has stated, unbelievers have “mined from the ore of for use in a classroom setting. The persons mentioned in chap- divine providence” (). Or, as Cornelius Van Til would term ter , “Protestant Evangelicalism,” are not only conservative it, they have “borrowed capital.” Naugle states that there are scholars, but are also noted for their apologetic style within the three biblical sources of reality: cosmological, as creation by the Reformed camp of theology. In chapter  Naugle addresses, Word; cosmosophical, as creation through Christ as Wisdom; albeit briefly, the worldview of both Roman Catholic and and cosmonomical, as creation by Law, which maintains order Eastern Orthodox confessions. It is here that he discusses a in the universe. Here is the classic order of Calvinism: give the “sacramental” worldview. In chapter three he gives a thorough gospel, but always end with the law. Lutherans might call it a philological history of Weltanschauung, starting with Kant. paradigm of law-gospel-law. (As a former Reformed minister, Although in Lutheran circles we tend to hear this concept dis- this was my unconscious paradigm for preaching as well.) cussed in a missiological context, Naugle has in my opinion suc- I found interesting Naugle’s inclusion and treatment in this ceeded in showing the relevance for its use in a greater context. chapter of the cosmic warfare. I did not expect it from a person In the bulk of the book, Naugle gives the reader insight about with such strong Calvinistic leaning, but he handled it well. the philosophical and disciplinary history of “worldview” in both Unlike Luther, who had a lot to say about spiritual battles of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. Under the heading of “principalities and powers,” Lutherans do not talk about this philosophical history, he notes such men as Hegel, Kierkegaard, subject much. Maybe we think if we ignore it, it is not real. Dilthey, Nietzche, Husserl, Jaspers, Heidegger, and Wittgenstein. Rather than ignoring it, maybe we should read more of Luther. At the end of chapter  he has a brief section covering some post- I must also mention that in this chapter Naugle focuses on modern thinkers as well. Chapters  and  address the discipli- Calvin and only hints at the “sacramental character of the nary histories of natural and social sciences. In his treatment of world.” I believe his Calvinistic bias, formerly shared by me, the natural sciences Naugle discusses Michael Polanyi on episte- cannot allow him to grasp fully the full implications of this. mology and philosophy of science, and Thomas Kuhn with his In “Philosophical Reflections” (chapter ), Naugle discusses attack on logical positivism. In dealing with social science Naugle how we are created to be “semiotic” beings who must commu- includes Freud and Jung in psychology; Mannheim, Berger, nicate reality via symbols. This brings us to the question of how Luckmann, Marx and Engels in sociology; and Kearney and the Triune God has imposed his ontological presence on all of Redfield in cultural anthropology. creation as “the totality of creation is divine iconography. One important aspect of this book is Naugle’s “Concluding Everything in this enchanted, sacramental, symbol-friendly Implications” at the end of each chapter. In these he does not go universe is drenched with sacred signs.” Now, how can one into great detail critiquing the thinkers he has surveyed, but poses make a beautiful statement like that and ignore the Lutheran some thought-provoking questions about the validity, or lack there- worldview? Maybe Naugle thinks it is just for the Eastern of, of each of these influential writers for our Christian worldview. Orthodox. Christian worldview is to be hermeneutical in its In this way, Naugle has succeeded in challenging the reader to look examination of reality, and homiletical in the way it proclaims with a critical eye at each system of thought discussed, and yet to this reality. I like that! 

 

“Concluding Reflections” (chapter ) shows the dangers and of the Selbständige Evangelisch-Lutherische Kirche in Görlitz, benefits of the use of “worldview” for the Christian. The dangers Germany, and contributing editor to L, contends are seen in the conclusions of such writers as Heidegger and Barth, while the benefits are the development of a comprehensive that the crisis of the Scripture principle is not a time-bound Christian worldview that not only challenges the worldviews of crisis, but an eschatological conflict of authorities, insofar as unbelief, but also brings to light the full breath of the christolog- here the “how”and the “whence” of temporal and eternal sal- ical (my inference, not Naugle’s) effect on all of life. vation of man and world are in dispute before God (). Overall, despite his Calvinistic bias, which has prevented him from delving deeper into the wealth of sacramental worldview It is therefore a conflict between God and the devil, the true possibilities, Naugle has done us a great service in explaining the church and the false church, centering on the first command- history and impact of worldview in the academic cultures of the ment (–). In other words, assent to, and rejection of, the western mind. Although he hints at a synthesis of Evangelical authority of Scripture are effects of Scripture itself, and not (Reformed) apologetic with sacramental theology to form a brought about by prior human reflection and efforts (ff.). complete Christian worldview, he fails to explore this in any depth. It would have been enlightening to read it. Still, Naugle has Wenz develops this program in five chapters. The first two deal laid the groundwork upon which someone else may build. with how German protestant churches dealt with self-evident One very troubling part of this book is the almost exclusive conflicts in the past. Here he first explores dogmatically how the absence of any Lutheran understanding of worldview. I do not Book of Concord used Scripture in its time; this chapter is meant fault Naugle for this, suspecting that it is because he did not to “verify and unfold” the thesis quoted above. The second chap- think Lutherans were that important and presupposed that ter explores the role of Scripture in the conflicts during the s their understanding fit under a general Christian worldview. and s, also know as “Church Struggle.” Based on these two Also, that we really do not make an impact in this area of apolo- “heuristic and criteriological” chapters, the author juxtaposes getics says something about the Lutheran worldview itself. As dogmatically several leading German Lutheran post-war theolo- one writer says, it is “the Lutheran quietism which lacks the gians in the third chapter. First, Wenz presents the positions of courage to relate the gospel of Christ to the questions of the Gerhard Ebeling, Wilfried Joest, Wolfhart Pannenberg, and oth- concrete world of today” (Wurth, Niebuhr, ). This is unfortu- ers. As already in the preceding two chapters, Wenz works basi- nate, because Lutheranism offers the most balanced under- cally with the ipsissimae voces of those theologians; I consider this standing of life in the sacramental existence of the church in the a definite strength of this book, despite the many (,!) foot- presence of God as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Although I notes it entails, because it allows the reader to become acquaint- think Calvinists have won and continue to win the day in cri- ed with the already revealing lingo those men use. In the second tiquing all of culture in the tradition of such writers as James part of this chapter the author elaborates on his own position, Orr, Abraham Kuyper and their Reformed descendants, with again amply documented by numerous footnotes from works their lack of good Christology they fall short in their efforts to chiefly by Oswald Bayer, Hermann Sasse (to whom this disserta- set forth a genuine, historical catholic worldview. tion is dedicated), Reinhard Slenczka, and Johannes Wirsching. Thank you, David Naugle, for the diligent and educated Here he nicely debunks the deceptive shortcomings of neo- reminder that we need to wake up and reclaim what is ours to Lutheranism and defends the biblical teaching of the efficacy of the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ. the gospel. The concluding two chapters contain a systematic LeRoy Leach summary and an outlook. Fort Wayne, Indiana As it becomes clear from the outline of this book—and this is also implied in his thesis—Wenz sees an irreconcilable dogmatic disagreement at work in contemporary German Lutheran theolo- gy that is, despite the historical and political differences he Das Wort Gottes—Gericht und Rettung: Untersuchungen zur acknowledges, analogous to that during the confessional times in Autorität der Heiligen Schrift in Bekenntnis und Lehre der Kirche. which the Lutheran confessions were penned down in the s, By Armin Wenz. Forschungen zur systematischen und œku- and in which the Bethel Confession, for example, was drafted by menischen Theologie . Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, Lutheran theologians in the Prussian Union church (chiefly .  pages. D. Bonhoeffer and H. Sasse) in August  (). With the author- ity of the biblical word of God in all three cases everything—that h This  doctoral dissertation (dogmatic theology, under is, eternal salvation and eternal damnation—is at stake. For, as Prof. Dr. Reinhard Slenczka, University of Erlangen-Nünberg) is Wenz contends, where the sola Scriptura is given up, there the sola not a study of the doctrine of Scripture as such, but an exploration fide and the sola gratia cannot be upheld either (, ). of how Scripture is “made foundational, applied, criticized, and What makes Wenz think so? After all, G. Ebeling and W. Joest, brought to bear” in situations of dogmatic conflict, when founda- for example, are renowned Luther scholars. How does Wenz actu- tional authorities contradict each other and clash (). In a time ally describe the status controversiae between the opposing camps? when many leading (German Lutheran) theologians see the To put it simply, the one group, according to Wenz, sees “under- authority of Scripture as problematic and in need of a good deal standing” and believing as results of conscious prevenient of theological or philosophical support, the author, who is pastor hermeneutical efforts (= works) on part of the inspired theolo-

  gian; the second group considers them as free gifts from God to however, that further study of Scripture, the confessions, and —as the sinner through the inspired gospel itself (, ). suggested by Wenz himself ( n. )—the teachings of Lutheran The position Wenz defends is to be commended for several rea- Orthodoxy on the issue will lead beyond neo-orthodoxy. For this sons; I mention but two. First, he reminds us that controversies is the only way out of the self-inflicted crisis of post-enlighten- like the one surrounding Seminex, in which nothing less than the ment German Lutheranism (cf. Pieper, : –). first commandment—and consequently also the supremacy of Holger Sonntag the doctrine of justification—was at stake, threaten us, the chil- Fort Wayne, Indiana dren of Adam and Eve, from within and without as long as we live on earth. Second, as Wenz demonstrates, especially deceptive are those neo-orthodox and neo-pietistic efforts aimed at compen- sating for the loss of the objective biblical word of God (due to B N historicism) by giving normative status to the preached Word, experience, and/or ecclesiastical traditions or offices, which are all, rightly understood, good and important matters. Yet is Wenz’s work consistent in itself and, most importantly, Luther Digest . Edited by Kenneth Hagen. Mequon, does it agree with Scripture and the confessions? While Wenz Wisconsin: Luther Academy, . rightly states that the Lutheran Confessions identify Scripture, revelation, and the word of God and do not distinguish between h This annual abridgement of Luther studies, now in its tenth error and truth within Scripture (, , cf. –), he himself year, offers readers access to significant books and articles in the does make distinctions here, which lead to serious inconsistencies. area of Luther and Reformation research. The  issue is orga- For on the one hand, he asserts the historicity of the biblical life of nized in five main categories: () biblical studies, () the pastoral Christ (preexistence, incarnation, virgin birth, and others), sees Luther, () Luther in historical context, () special issues, and () fides historica implied in the certainty of faith, and ascribes high friends, foes, and family. Like its predecessors, volume  of the theological importance to the facticity of Christ’s resurrection on Luther Digest will be a tool not only for scholars, but also for Easter (, , –).Yet on the other hand, the creation of the parish pastors who seek to keep informed regarding current world according to Genesis , for instance, needs to be understood trends in Reformation research and who desire a guide to new “theologically” (, cf. , n. ). After all, a little bit of historical work in Luther’s theology and pastoral practice. criticism cannot be that bad (). Clearly, “repristination theolo- gy” is not for him (, cf. ). Yet I would contend that this phrase describes, according to his own analysis, exactly the approach of the Lutheran confessors (cf. , , furthermore ). Pastoral Theology in the Classical Tradition. By Andrew Purves. It seems that Wenz’s error consists in his failure to distinguish Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, . between what makes the Bible authoritative “for me” and on what its authority objectively rests (–, –). While the former h This book by a professor of pastoral theology at Pittsburgh is clearly caused by faith in the biblical gospel as a fruit of this Theological Seminary (Presbyterian Church U.S.A.) follows in the gospel’s being preached to all, the latter is clearly due to its being wake of Thomas Oden’s call for pastors to move beyond thera- the verbally inspired word of God (cf. F. Pieper, Christian peutic/clinical models of pastoral counseling to embrace the Dogmatics : –, , also E. Klug, Springfielder  []:  church’s historic understanding of seelsorge. Purves examines five []). It goes without saying that this is neither “fundamental- writers—Gregory of Nazianzus, John Chrysostom, Gregory the ism,” nor a “rationalistic concept of inerrancy,” nor “rigid Great, Martin Bucer, and Richard Baxter —and draws from each Biblicism,” as Wenz implies (–). Contrary to Reformed of these churchmen insights that challenge many modern psy- aberrations (cf. Pieper, : –, –), for orthodox chological assumptions that undermine genuine spiritual care. Lutherans, God’s word of the Bible has never been just a histori- cally true book, but also an efficacious means of grace that deliv- ers what it promises and creates and sustains saving faith in what it delivers—of course, never apart from Christ (cf. SD , ). They Will See His Face: Worship and Healing. By Richard Eyer. Thus, unlike Wenz and his protagonists, they never pit efficacy St. Louis: CPH, . against inerrancy (cf. L ,no. [Reformation ]: –): it is the Crucified who brings along all the other offensive articles of h Drawing on his rich experiences as a hospital chaplain, faith (cf. Luther, AE : –; : ; : –, –; also Ep. Richard Eyer reflects on the liturgy as the arena and instrument , ; SD ,  as authentic expositions of AC , –), also that of for God’s gracious work of healing. Written in a conversational creation according to Genesis  (cf. Hebrews : and Luther, WA style and with a devotional tone, Eyer invites worshipers to pon- : – = St. L. : –). der how each part of the liturgy touches a dimension of our need: All in all, Paul’s warning in Gal. :– (cf. Luther, AE : –) guilt, anxiety, loneliness, depression, grief, sickness, and intellect. applies to Wenz’s approach as yet another version of neo- Each of the seven chapters concludes with several discussion ques- Lutheranism, even more than to the other forms he criticizes, tions and a short Bible study, making the volume a fine resource because of the good and helpful insights he offers. It is hoped, for congregational study.

 

Caritas Et Reformatio: Essays on Church and Society in Honor Love Taking Shape: Sermons on the Christian Life. By Gilbert of Carter Lindberg. Edited by David M. Whitford. St. Louis: Meilaender. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing CPH, . Company, . h Carter Lindberg’s contributions to Reformation studies span h Gilbert Meilaender, a Lutheran ethicist teaching at Valparaiso the better part of four decades. The depth and breadth of University, shares two dozen sermons that he preached in various Lindberg’s work is reflected in the sixteen essays by former stu- congregations. Five sermons are based on Luther’s treatment of dents and colleagues drawn together in this Festschrift to celebrate baptism in the Small Catechism and were preached as a series for his sixty-fifth birthday. Priscilla Bauman writes on a pre- midweek Lenten services. A series of homilies on the decalog is Reformation topic, warnings against usury in medieval France. also included. Four sermons are on texts from the sermon on the Katie Luther as a “mirror” of the place of women in the mount. Other offerings include a homily preached at the wedding Reformation is the theme of Krisi Stjerna’s chapter. Gregory of Meilaender’s daughter, a funeral sermon, and a sermon on the Miller provides a timely essay that examines Luther’s understand- anniversary of Roe versus Wade. The imprint of C. S. Lewis, ing of “just war” in light of the Turkish threat. Gottfried Seebass Robert Jenson, and Josef Pieper are evident in these sermons. studies examples of resistance to the curia religionis in three Preachers who struggle to speak evangelically of the Christian life prominent Reformation cities. John Witte’s essay focuses on a would do well to learn from Meilaender’s craft. Reformation jurist, Johannes Eisermann. David Whitford takes JTP+ up the use of Romans  in the Magdeburg Confession. Out of his deep store of scholarship on that most vociferous apologist for the Lutheran cause, Matthias Flacius, Oliver Olson provides an account of Flacius’s involvement in the Netherlands revolt of –. Scott Hendrix traces Calvin’s reform of marriage in Geneva. Robert Kolb tackles the issue of the relationship between justification and sanctification in the preaching of Martin Chemnitz—a topic of ongoing pastoral engagement. Jeannine Olson takes up a study of the Protestant deacon. Maygrace Peters examines homiletical themes in Roman Catholic preaching in the Reformation era. Peter Vogt provides an essay on the holiness of the church from a Reformation perspective. Reformation roots and Baptist identity is the subject of Bill Leonard’s contribution. Oswald Bayer, with characteristic thoroughness and Lutheran insight, offers an essay entitled “Toward a Theology of Lament.” Dennis Biefeldt discusses Luther’s use of theological language. A final essay by James Kittelson is a feisty challenge to so-called Evangelical Catholic ecclesiology.

L Forum S S  C

    her title to the historic name? What is generic Lutheranism? T C A Does it consist in a rigid adherence to the minutiae of the L T written theological records of the sixteenth century with which all present opinions are to be conformed, or may it In his introduction to Vergilius Ferm’s book The Crisis in American consist in an adherence to the fundamental doctrines and Lutheran Theology, Luther A. Weigle wrote that “Judgments of polity of the Church of the Reformation. Dr. Schmucker will differ, as they always have. I am inclined to The charge made by the opponents of the Platform that it think, however, that his figure will loom greater, rather than less, aimed to discredit the historic confessions of the Church was as the passage of years lends perspective to the view of American certainly justified. That was its acknowledged claim. But the Church history, and as we draw nearer to the realization of his discredit sought in the document was directed not against the dream of Christian Union.” We are inclined to think that Weigle’s symbols as descriptive doctrinal statements, to be honored as dream is becoming a reality as we note, for example, the direction such, but against attributing to them an absolute and norma- of the LCMS under new management. This extended piece comes tive character. To this end, a list of errors to be found in the from The Crisis in American Lutheran Theology, pages –. historic confessions was boldly set forth. Whether or not the Platform is to be judged correct in those It is clear that a definite animus lay behind the Definite Synodical charges of error pointed out in the historic confessions of the Platform. It was an attempt to check the revival, in America, of Church is a question to be decided by the church historian and that earlier European attitude toward the historic symbols which by one’s own theological opinion. The doctrinal articles of the regarded these as normative declarations of Lutheranism. The Augsburg Confession were intended, as is well known, to be of issue, as it became more clearly defined, may be summed up in an irenic character. The aim of the Reformers, at this early stage such questions as these: Are the historic symbols of the Church of their labors and upon this particular occasion, was to present mere descriptive statements of theological opinion which as far as possible such views as would be acceptable to the the- obtained in a given period of the Church’s history, and, as such, ologians of the old Church, and at the same time to repudiate instructive, interesting, and suggestive historical documents; or the false charges of radicalism which were attributed to the are they normative doctrinal expressions to which the Church account of the Protestants. must ever remain faithful? His own historical studies had convinced S. S. Schmucker that May not the Lutheran Church in America develop its own this Confession was just such a conciliatory document, that it had characteristics theological and practical, or must she revert to not shaken off completely the practices and traditions of the the written documents of a former day in order to carry out Church of Rome, such as, e.g., the ceremonies attending the mass and the practice of private confession and absolution. It was only later that the complete emancipation came. It was, however, not his historical studies alone which led S. S. Schmucker to regard A   L F may be reprinted freely for study the Augsburg Confession with such suspicion on these points. He and dialogue in congregations and conferences with the understanding had ever carried an antipathy for ceremonial observances, litur- that appropriate bibliographical references be made. Initialed pieces are gies, and rigid ecclesiastical customs [His son, B. M. Schmucker, written by contributing editors whose names are noted on our mast- head. Brief articles may be submitted for consideration by sending them remarked that “the whole cast of his mind revealed his aversion to Rev. Joel A. Brondos,  S. Hanna St., Fort Wayne, IN -. to a liturgical service, his rejection of all right of past usage to When possible, please provide your work on a .-inch influence the present”]. Moreover, the passing testimony of that Windows/ compatible diskette. Because of the large number of same Confession to the “Lord’s Day” did not satisfy his more unsolicited materials received, we regret that we cannot publish them rigid puritanical training and spirit. Other of the “errors” men- all or notify authors in advance of their publication. Since L is “a free conference in print,” readers should understand that views tioned in the document, admittedly departing from the doctrinal expressed here are the sole responsibility of the authors and do not views of the Confessions, reveal in a similar manner the theologi- necessarily reflect the positions of the editors. cal opinions of that author.



 

Thrust so suddenly upon the district synods of the General platform definitely and specifically interpreting the General Synod, the Definite Synodical Platform demanded an unequivo- Synod’s attitude to the one historic Confession which was cal stand against the symbols of the Church as well as an open officially recognized by that body. It was an explicit definition and unmistakable declaration of a qualified acceptance of the of what was to be meant by such words as “fundamental” and Augsburg Confession of . “substantially correct.” The omissions made in the “American The manner of its introduction into the various district bodies Recension” were just such definitions. It was, then, the most proved displeasing to the large majority. The sentence in the intro- specific credal document which, up to this time, had been circu- ductory Note which asked that the Platform be received entire lated in the General Synod. Viewed, however, from the standpoint “without alteration,”as well as the resolution which suggested that of the Church in the period which saw its appearance, the each district synod adopt, viz., “that we will not receive into our platform proper (that is, not including the second part on “List Synod any minister who will not adopt this Platform, and faithful- of Symbolic Errors Rejected”) presented a liberal doctrinal basis ly labor to maintain its discipline in his charge,”proved exasperat- upon which the two schools of Lutheranism could unite, provid- ing. It smacked of dictatorship. The loose way in which the term ed they agreed to relegate their differences to a place outside the “Platform” was used in the first edition as a term suggesting the circle of Lutheran fundamentals. It is true, as the defender of that whole document, whereas the author(s) in their defense declared document stated, viz., that both schools agreed to the doctrines that the term was to cover only the first part, i.e., “Definite printed in the “American Recension.” But the points at issue were Platform, Doctrinal and Disciplinary . . .”proved to advance the the omissions. It is clear that those of the “old school” were not charge preferred against it by the leaders in opposition, that it was willing to relegate such doctrines as, e.g., baptismal regeneration intolerant and proscriptive. and the true presence of the body and blood of the Saviour in the This misunderstanding, together with the tactics of those mov- Eucharist, doctrines plainly taught by the Reformers and stanchly ing in secret behind the document, set up a feeling of distrust and defended in the sixteenth-century controversy, to a place of non- resentment among many who had yet remained non-committal fundamental character, so long as the symbols of the Church upon the issues that were raised. It was not alone two schools were to be held in such reverence. To subscribe to the Platform which had been marking themselves off from one another in the meant to acknowledge the omissions as nonfundamental—which Church before  on the question of attitude to the symbols. was just the issue! There was another group which had not taken to either camp. Furthermore, a feeling of resentment was provoked, even The symbolical books which had been circulated among the min- by those who acknowledged points of difference with the istry and the people had brought an interest in the study of the Confession of , by this pruning of the most venerable confes- declarations of the Reformers. But this study had, with many, not sion of the Church and of Protestantism. That this had been yet brought them to a decided stand. In such a state of suspended done before in the Church was a fact to be acknowledged; yet the judgment, the sudden introduction of a demand, by unknown procedure here in question was to take on an official character by parties, of an enlistment against the writings of the heroes of the synodical action and not to be a mere individual expression. Church, could not fail to provoke suspicion and set up a cautious Although not in accord with some of the views of the fathers, attitude toward the school represented in the strange document. it was deemed an act of irreverence to alter even by way of omis- Given a state of indecision relative to two equally inviting groups, sion a document which had gathered around it, in the three cen- with one suddenly provoking a feeling of resentment, it is not turies, an officious and hallowed character. This conservative difficult to predict where the lot will be cast. temper, so characteristic in religious history, became, through the Whatever mistaken tactics may be charged to the leaders of appeals and arguments of the leaders in opposition, a strong fac- “American Lutheranism” in the manner in which their document tor in the defeat of that document and a sustaining force in the was presented to the public, it must be said that a state of genuine reaction toward confessionalism. As has been pointed out, many alarm mingled with exasperation were the precipitating forces who were in general agreement with the views presented in the that lay behind that document. Keenly sensitive to the current pamphlet were alienated from the cause of “American movement in the Church which had brought suspicion and dis- Lutheranism” and were soon the easy prey of the leaders who trust to a long cherished ideal—that of theological freedom— labored to steer the Church back to a stricter confessional basis. together with a growing emphasis on denominational differences with the dethronement of another ideal—that of a larger unity on the fundamental doctrines of Protestantism—had brought S. S. Schmucker, who otherwise had been cool, patient, and delib-      erative, to join himself with others, of more restless and impulsive L Y P natures, in what proved to be a rash and unpalatable procedure. For a ten-year period, from  to , Theodore Graebner It is only in the light of such a fear that the name of S. S. received questions from young pastors in the field, that is, in local Schmucker, whose whole program of leadership had been on congregations. These men wanted to receive counsel and guidance catholic principles, may be linked with the attempt to set up a on particular matters. Dr. Graebner replied with the practical more definite doctrinal basis for the Church in . application of Scripture, and in doing so, did not offer anything The Definite Synodical Platform, then, was framed to meet an novel. Doctrinally his letters represent the stand of our Lutheran issue and a new circumstance. Viewed from the standpoint of the Confessions and the practice of the church. In  Concordia Church during the early period of the General Synod, it was a Publishing House published  of these letters in a book titled

  

Pastor and People: Letters to a Young Preacher. The letters were Will Strictness Kill Our Church? selected since they were deemed to be of benefit to pastors and That the Church will never succeed unless it gives up its clergy alike. It is hoped that the same will be the case with the narrowness and becomes more liberal is the assertion made bulletin inserts in this series. by one out of five of the unchurched. Of course, I have no The following three excerpts are taken from reprints made intention of modifying our doctrine to suit these so-called available by the Rev. Michael L. McCoy, pastor of Our Redeemer “prospects.” But what shall one reply to those who tell us that Lutheran Church in Emmett, Idaho. He has posted these for our strictness is not in harmony with the age and country we public use in the form of bulletin inserts at www.scholia.net, are living in? together with many other helpful resources. Let me take for granted that our Church on account of its strictness is not suited for this present age. In that case it The Intolerance of the Gospel would behoove us to remember that it is not our business at When they call you “strict, strait-laced, legalistic,” and when all to save the Church or to build the Church. That is the they charge you with being “nursed on orthodoxy” which Lord’s business. Preacher and people have only one business— stands for “separatism and aloofness,” it is fitting, of course, to be witnesses for Jesus Christ. One thing is required of them, that you proceed with a rigorous self-examination whether that they love their Lord and Master and be obedient to His to any extent, be it large or small, you are giving reason and will. Then, by their testimony to His teachings, God wants to cause for these accusations. build and preserve the Church. Even if defensible on doctrinal grounds, your attitude It is not their business at all to consider whether these towards non-Missourians may be such as to give the impres- teachings are popular or whether those who hold them will sion of pharisaic aloofness. How to avoid such an impression be regarded as bigots, fanatics, as narrow and pharisaical. is, of course, another question, since it is the common charge They are to trust the good Lord that He has made no mistake leveled against all who are practising according to strict in commissioning them to preach exactly what He taught His Lutheran principles. Still our manner should not be repulsive, evangelists and apostles, the divinely ordained teachers until high-hatted, or self-righteous even in appearance towards oth- the Day of Judgment, to set forth in the Scriptures. ers who bear the Lutheran name—or towards any Protestant, If we are going to listen to this fleshly complaining about Catholic, Jew, or agnostic, for that matter. “strictness” and “narrowness,” where do you suppose this It was Dr. William M. Taylor who, fifty years ago, said in his thing will end? Do you know that the world generally believes series of addresses called Paul the Missionary that intolerance that there is no difference at all between the teachings of the is in a certain sense necessary in the interests of religious free- Pope and those of the Church of the Reformation? They call dom. He explains this thought as follows: “Paul’s letters to the even these differences which touch nearly every single doctrine Galatians and to the Romans were written for the preservation that Jesus taught “hair-splitting.” of liberty; for in one of them he says: ‘Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free’; and yet, for The Lord’s Prayer and the Lodge Prayers. the very purpose of saying that they should be denounced by Continually I meet with the objection: “But the Lord’s every loyal servant of the Lord and that the Church should Prayer itself does not use the name of Christ!” when I refer absolve itself from all complicity with the errorists. And to the Christless religion of the lodge, particularly to the omis- though there are many who would cry out against such a sion of the name of our Lord from the prayers. What is a man course as bigoted, I would rather, even in the interests of free- to answer? As a matter of fact the name of Jesus does not dom itself, have—if you choose to call it so—the bigotry of appear in the Lord’s Prayer. Paul than the indifference of him who counts nothing essen- To begin with, the attitude of our Church is not by any tial and who is everything by turns and nothing long.” means that every prayer must conclude with some such phrase Next I was surprised to read this reference to Martin Luther: as, “We ask it for Jesus’ sake.” Praying in the name of Christ “Luther was no foe of freedom, but indeed its greatest modern does not mean mentioning His name in prayer, but to put our pioneer; and in the proportion in which, like him, we are intol- trust and confidence for an answer in that work of redemption erant of everything that compromises the honor of Christ or which He who bears this name has accomplished. Hence, even the doctrine of His Cross, we shall conserve and widen the lib- if the name of Jesus is used, that by no means in itself proves erty which he did so much to secure. So let us raise anew the that the prayer is a Christian one. shout of Paul, making it our motto, not for the moment of our In the case of the lodge this becomes a very important con- brief enthusiasm merely, but for all our lives: “God forbid that sideration, since the lodge, especially Freemasonry, teaches I should glory save in the Cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, by with all possible emphasis that we are saved by our works, by whom the world is crucified unto me and I unto the world.” a life “by the level and on the square.” Christ is excluded from I can only add that in the same degree as we remain hum- the way of salvation, hence any reference to Him in a Masonic ble, we shall be preserved in this truly Christlike intolerance. prayer simply makes it a blasphemous misuse of His name. When we begin to glorify the Lutheran Church as an organi- It follows that only Christians can pray the Lord’s Prayer as it zation instead of glorifying Christ by taking upon ourselves was understood in the mind of Christ, who taught it only to the reproach of the Gospel, we have become fit material for His disciples, even as He addressed only His followers when the unionistic church politician to work upon. He told them to pray “in His name.”

 

The charge against lodge-worship is not that it omits refer- Within congregations themselves a very strict church disci- ence to Christ, but that it omits such reference by design. pline is maintained. These brethren who, in a measure, com- Masonry includes Jews, Farsis, and Mohammedans; hence, menced the Lutheran Church here anew, have most wisely to avoid the offence which the name of Jesus would give, He profited by the sad experience of many of the older congrega- is excluded from the basic ritual. This is a denial of Jesus tions of this country, whose constitutions were, in this particu- Christ and will, by His own testimony, result in His disowning lar, exceedingly deficient—a circumstance which has, in many those on Judgment Day who have so denied Him. Hence the instances been productive of the most lamentable results. In Christless worship of the lodge is a damnable sin, and those their Church discipline we regard private confession as one of guilty of it have no place in the Christian congregation. the main points, it being made part of a minister’s official duty Lodge prayer is sinful, whether the name of Christ is men- to acquaint himself as far as lays in his power with the spiritual tioned or not. It is sinful when the name of Christ is omitted condition of each individual member of his flock. because it is omitted in order to maintain the lodge principle; Equally important is the fact that no individual can, as long no repentance and no faith in Christ is required in the lodge as he is a member of any secret society be admitted as a regu- way of salvation, hence He is barred from the ritual. On the lar member of the congregation. He may indeed be received other hand, lodge prayer would be sinful also if or wherever for one year on probation, but when that has expired, he must Christ’s name is mentioned, since such use of His name would come to a decision whether he will dissolve his connection be blasphemy. Of such praying Christ speaks Matt. :. with the secret society or the congregation; a measure, it will easily be perceived, eminently calculated to exclude from a congregation all foreign and disorganizing elements. Members are of course required to subscribe to the doctrines and con- L C stitution of the Church and congregation. In his book Lutheranism in America, published in , W. J. Mann thus described Missouri-Synod Lutherans:     But what is the character of religious life of these Lutheran T S brethren of a stricter tendency? If active zeal in the promo-  C tion of the kingdom of God, in the spirit of the Lutheran Church may be regarded as an evidence of living piety, they . The pastor hears confession by virtue of his office as Christ’s are not surpassed by any part of that Church. They manifest servant. Thus the pastor is both the ear and mouth of Christ the most lively interest in the cause of missions, having for the penitent. It is Christ who hears the sins that are con- erected stations even among some of the Indian tribes of fessed to the pastor, and it is Christ who absolves sinners the northwestern part of this country. They are indefagitable through the word spoken by the pastor (Luke :; Small in the building up of colleges, seminaries, churches, parochial Catechism, ). schools, and congregations. These congregations are often very small in numbers, but . Ordination places the pastor under orders to forgive and always ready to do their utmost in sustaining their churches, retain sins (John :–). This is the work of the office. schools, and public worship. Many of our German congrega- He is not set in office as a servant of the state but of the tions especially would do well to imitate these brethren in church. In this office, the pastor must render unto God, the their voluntary, self-denying labors for the kingdom of God. things that belong to God (Mt :–). That is, the pastor Most of the ministers, it is true, command the respect and is obligated to render faithfulness to God in the stewardship love of their people, but their outward circumstances are often of the means of grace. those of poverty and hardship. Many of them are obliged to act during the week as teachers of parochial schools. The religious . In the ordination vow, the candidate solemnly promises to education of children is another point upon which they earnest- perform the duties of the office in accordance with the Holy ly insist. The profession of a school-teacher is most justly regard- Scriptures and the Lutheran Confessions. The candidate ed by them as being closely allied to that of the minister, and it is explicitly promises “never to divulge the sins confessed to worthy of note, that well-tried and pious school-teachers are you” (LWA, ). Men should make this vow only after careful received as advisory members at their Synodical meetings. and prayerful study of the Sacred Scriptures and the Book of They also aim especially at having, as far as possible, divine Concord. This vow is made coram Deo with the knowledge service in every congregation on every Sunday, so that minis- that such vows are promises made to God Himself (see Num ters are not at liberty to take charge of as many congregations :–; Ecc :–). as they may think proper. New congregations in the West, which are not too distant from each other and wish to be asso- . This vow obligates the pastor to complete and utter secrecy in ciated, often build their churches at the most central point respect to the sins that are confessed to him for God Himself where all may easily assemble every Sunday for worship; but removes these sins from the penitent and remembers them no each congregation has nevertheless its own school and teacher. more (see Ps :–). “The confession made by the penitent is

  

protected from disclosure. The pastor is at all times obligated to I L respect the confidential nature of a confession” (LWA, ). From volume  of The Lonely Way, a collection of Hermann . For a pastor to reveal sins that have been confessed to him Sasse essays published by CPH, pages –. In this essay dated contradicts the forgiveness bestowed by Christ. This renders July , , Sasse comments on whether or not The Lutheran the pastor a hireling who is no longer capable of the trust of Church—Missouri Synod should join the Lutheran World Christ’s Church and, therefore, must be removed from office Federation. To date, the LCMS has resisted joining the LWF, but (Ez :–). When a shepherd exhumes that which Christ has proponents remain who are eager to include our church in that buried in the forgiveness of sins, he exposes the sheep entrust- association. ed to his care to a variety of dangers, not the least of which is the temptation to unbelief and despair. A pastor who is Our fathers in the Reformation did not write the confessions unable to keep the promises of the ordination is not above as the expression of their subjective faith only, but as the reproach ( Tim :) and is untrustworthy (Prov :). objective truth of the Word of God. To take one example, Professor Pelikan says of my attempts to clarify the Lutheran . The silence that he must keep may inflict upon the pastor doctrine of the Lord’s Supper that I try to persuade my readers severe pangs of conscience and possible legal action. to accept the doctrine of the Lutheran Confessions in this Nevertheless, the pastor is not authorized to break the silence matter. What he does not see is this: that there is not such imposed upon him by the office. He may not forsake his a thing as the “Lutheran doctrine,” properly speaking. What sheep when threatened (Jn :–). This is a cross that is laid Luther taught and what the confessions express is what Jesus upon the pastoral office. If civil authorities seek to force the said: “This is my body.” This is not a theory of Luther; it is the pastor to speak of sins that have been confessed to him, he doctrine of the holy catholic church since the time of the must resist rendering unto Caesar that which belongs to God apostles who had it from the Lord himself. alone (Mt :–). The same is true of other doctrines, as, for example, the dis- tinction of Law and Gospel, justification by faith, and so on. . In his teaching and preaching, the pastor will need to cate- Modern Lutheranism, however, regards itself as one of the chize his people regarding the seal of the confession so that confessional churches, each of which has its particular doc- they have the confidence to confess their sins and receive trine between which the dialogue has to take place that even- absolution without the fear of betrayal. tually will discover the truth, which so far is not yet known. It is what Edmund Schlink calls “inclusive Lutheranism” in . The confessional seal does not mean that the pastor has no contradistinction to that old Lutheranism which is called legal or moral obligation to report or give testimony to “exclusive” because it dared to reject any doctrine which con- immoral or illegal activity that may be reported to him or tradicted Holy Scripture. This modern Lutheranism no longer discovered by him in contexts outside of confession. A dis- refuses altar fellowship to the Reformed Christians. . . . This tinction is made between what is confessed to the pastor by “inclusive Lutheranism” is the Lutheranism of the LWF. a penitent and what is revealed to the pastor by one seeking Whatever is done to clarify and to improve the constitution protection from abuse or harm. [of the LWF], to put more emphasis on the confessional char- acter of the federation as a mere federation of churches that For Further Study: accept the doctrinal basis, the understanding of the LWF as a federation based on the inclusive understanding of its doctri- Bonhoeffer, D. Spiritual Care, . nal basis remains the same. This is the reason why it can Luther, Martin. “A Case Concerning the Seal of receive into full membership churches like that of the Batak Confession,” Table Talk, AE : –. [an Indonesian church], whose confession is not Lutheran and which has never accepted the Augsburg Confession and Pless, John T.“Healing through the Liturgy: The Rites of Luther’s catechisms as its confession. In contrast to Luther’s Pastoral Care,” in Christ’s Gifts for Healing the Soul, ed. catechism, it clearly teaches that infants do not believe and Daniel Zager, –. gives a different doctrine on the Baptisms of adults and Pless, John T.“Your Pastor Is not Your Therapist,” in A infants. It does not teach that the body and blood of the Lord Reader in Pastoral Theology, –. are present in, with, and under the elements, but only in the act of eating and drinking. The Fourth and Fifth Parts of the Schone, Jobst. “Preparing Christians for Confession: How catechism have never been in use in this church, a daughter to Address Penitents,” in Shepherd the Church: Essays in of the Barmen Mission, which is United with a strong Pastoral Theology Honoring Bishop Roger D.Pittelko, ed. F. Reformed element . . . . Baue, J. Fenton, E. Forss, F. Pies, and J. Pless. One could say this: All this will be better as soon as Trillhaas, Wolfgang. “The Seal of Confession,” in Minister’s Missouri is a member and can utter its criticism inside the Prayer Book, ed. John W. Doberstein, . federation. The answer is that Missouri could not possibly John T. Pless alter the situation that none of the basic problems of Fort Wayne, Indiana Lutheranism today can be dealt with in the LWF. As soon as

  the question of the nature and authority of the Scriptures and shall do nothing which looks like deciding between them; that the meaning of sola Scriptura [“Scripture alone”] were dis- would be partiality. It is bigotry to assert any superior right for cussed within the LWF, the federation would break apart. Even the truth. We are to agree to differ and any favoring of the such a vital question as the ordination of women would find truth, because it is truth, is partisanship. a completely divided assembly. What the friends of truth and error hold in common is fun- It is useless to emphasize the principle that there can be no damental. Anything on which they differ is ipso facto non-essen- church fellowship between Calvinists and Lutherans as long tial. Anybody who makes account of such a thing is a disturber a there is full communio in sacris [“participation in sacred of the peace of the church. Truth and error are coordinate pow- things”] between the Church of Sweden and the Church of ers and the great secret of church statesmanship is to preserve Scotland and the Church of England. As long as Anglican the balance between them. For in this point error soon goes on bishops participate in the consecration of Lutheran bishops in to its natural end, which is to assert supremacy. Truth started Sweden, Finland, India, and Africa and the mythical “apostolic with tolerating; it comes to be merely tolerated and that only succession” is extended also to Lutheran bishops in Germany, for a time. Error claims a preference for its judgments on all as the Anglicans claim, there is not and cannot be any agree- disputed points. It puts men into positions not at first in spite ment on the meaning of AC  and . Or do the theologians of their departure from the Church’s faith, but in consequence of Missouri really believe that they will be able to stop this of it. Their recommendation is that they repudiate that faith practice? Perhaps they have in their own midst men who long and position is given them to teach others to repudiate it and for apostolic succession. to make them skillful in combating it. So necessary, so irresistible are these facts, and the princi- ples they throw into light, that we find in history the name of the Evangelical Lutheran Church, from the hour of its first distinctive use, linked for centuries with one unvarying feature    everywhere. Divided among nationalities, speaking diverse W T T tongues, developing different internal tendencies within cer- E tain limits, and without absolute identity as to the universal recognition of certain books as standards of doctrine, we find Charles Porterfield Krauth’s The Conservative Reformation, one unchanging element; the Evangelical Lutheran Church pages –. accepted the Augsburg Confession as scriptural throughout. Such a phenomenon as an Evangelical Lutheran claiming the Somewhere on earth, if the gates of hell have not prevailed right of assailing a doctrine taught in the Augsburg against the Church, there is a Communion whose fellowship Confession was unknown. involves no departure from a solitary article of Christian faith—and no man should be willing to be united with any other Communion. The man who is sure there is no such Communion is bound to put forth the effort to originate it. He who knows of no Creed which is true to the Rule of Faith     in all its articles should at once prepare one that is. Every H B I Christian is bound either to find a Church on Earth pure in   P its whole faith or to make one. On the other hand, he who says that the Church is wrong, When Charles Merrill Smith wrote How to Become a Bishop confesses in that very assertion, that if the Church be right, Without Being Religious, he apparently was not concerned about he is an errorist; and that in asking to share her communion being politically correct. Satire is never constrained by correctness, while he yet denies her doctrine, he asks here to adopt the but is rather enlivened by it. This excerpt comes from pages –. principle that error is to be admitted to her bosom, for as an errorist and only as an errorist can she admit him. The first rule for the popular preacher to remember as he But the practical result of this principle is one on which prepares a sermon is that style is of enormous importance there is no need of speculating; it works in one underlying while content makes little ultimate difference in the congrega- way. When error is admitted into the Church, it will be found tion’s enthusiasm for one’s efforts in the pulpit. About one that the stages of its progress are always three. It begins by ask- thousand parts style to one part content is a good proportion. ing toleration. Its friends say to the majority: You need not be No one cares very much what you say when you preach, so afraid of us; we are few and weak; only let us alone; we shall long as it is not radically controversial or disturbing. Your not disturb the faith of others. The Church has her standards acceptability as a preacher depends almost wholly on how you of doctrine; of course we shall never interfere with them; we say it. A really gifted preacher can deliver an exegesis of “Mary only ask for ourselves to be spared interference with our pri- Had a Little Lamb” or extol the virtues of the single tax and vate opinions. send the congregation home in a spiritual trance, while a Indulged in this for a time, error goes on to assert equal bumbler can bore it to death with a sensible and relevant rights. Truth and error are two balancing forces. The Church exposition of the parable of the prodigal son.

  

All too few young clerics starting at the front door of their is a good idea to connect up your stories to the sermon wher- career trouble themselves to ask the question “What do my ever possible—and it usually is.) More important, it subtly people want from a sermon?” Rather, they ask themselves reinforces your people in one of the prejudices to which they “What had I ought to give my congregation when I preach?” cling with tenacity and makes them feel comfortable about it. Which is only another form of the question “What do I want You can be certain that any middle-class, standard-brand to give them?” Protestant congregation is anti-Semitic. Not blatantly anti- Fundamentally, preaching at its best is one of the entertain- Semitic, of course. You would get the gate in no time at all if ment arts, and the successful pulpiteer will always think of you preached the Gerald L. K. Smith line. Also, hardly any of himself first as an entertainer. His problem is much the same your good people would admit to prejudice against Jews. It as Jack Benny’s or Shelley Berman’s or Mort Sahl’s. He has to isn’t popular to do so, and besides everyone wants to think he stand up and keep the customers interested in what he is say- is tolerant. Most of your members even know and like some ing or business will fall off at an alarming rate. The following individual Jewish family. But to a person they think of Jews as chapters will examine the techniques of pulpit entertainment. avaricious, selfish, grasping and quick to take advantage of the The old pros of the pulpit know that they should always other fellow. At the same time, they feel vaguely guilty about aim to do three things for and to the customers (congrega- feeling this way. tion) in every sermon: So with this illustration, you have managed to imply (a) that Jews are actually like we all think they are, and (b) if Jews would . Make them laugh only become Christians they would immediately become gener- . Make them cry ous, warmhearted and unselfish like us, and (c) the Christian . Make them feel religious religion is demonstrably superior to the Jewish religion and, by implication, to all other religions. This does not mean that people in church should be So in this one brief story you have succeeded in extending induced to guffaw like drunks in a night club. The amenities permission to hold a prejudice, absolved the people of their of civilized churchgoing preclude this sort of congregational guilt over holding it, and have made them feel good about behavior. A preacher should not aim to be a belly-laugh being Christian because Christians are superior people. And comedian—but he should be a hearty-giggle humorist or all this has been accomplished in the most entertaining of he is unlikely to be called to a major league pastorate. ways—through a funny story. This level of skill is attained by loading the sermon with You cannot hope to turn up so ideal an example of the funny stories. They don’t need to illustrate anything (one can humorous story for pulpit use every week in the year. But if always contrive to make a story fit); they just need to be funny. you keep it in mind as a model, it will help you in your selec- The wise young clergyman, then, will early begin the habit tions and remind you to make the people laugh. of collecting funny stories. Buy books of them, clip them out of newspapers and magazines, paste them in scrapbooks or keep them in files. You can never have too many of them. Let us now illustrate how to go about selecting a funny story for pulpit use. Let us suppose you are preparing a    sermon on Christian missions. One of your points will likely B S be “The joys and advantages of being a Christian.” Now when  T you come to this point in the sermon you can say, “Of course there are disadvantages to being a Christian. Sometimes What Charles Merrill Smith was doing for churchgoers in the people take advantage of the Christian’s spirit of benevolence. s, Tom Raabe is doing for the church today. The following This reminds me of the story of the Jewish man who was con- comes from his book The Ultimate Church, pages  and fol- verted to Christianity. After he was baptized and received into lowing. the church, he went home and was met at the door by his son who said, ‘Pop, I need  for a new sports car,’ and his Everyone a Minister. A great many breakthroughs in recent father gave it to him. As he came into the front room, his years have lifted up the laity vis-á-vis the intimidating pres- daughter came in and said, ‘Father, I’m going to Europe and ence of an imperial clergy. Robes and vestments have been the trip will cost ,’ so he gave it to her. As he went into forsaken in some quarters; chancels and pulpits have been the kitchen to see what was cooking, his wife said to him, physically lowered; laity have been installed behind lectern ‘Dear, I’ve ordered a new mink coat and it costs .’ So he and communion rail—all eroding the mighty barrier between gave it to her. clergy and laity and giving expression to the priesthood of “Then, alone for a moment, he meditated on all this. all believers. “‘Here I’ve been a Christian for a half-hour,’ he said to him- Yet the chasm remains. It is still the minister who preaches, self, ‘and these damn Jews have taken me for , already.’” baptizes, marries, and buries. The nimbus still hovers above Here is a nearly ideal humorous sermon illustration. For those who walk piously about the chancels of our sanctuaries one thing, it does illustrate a point more or less. (And though on Sunday mornings. They are somehow special, somehow we have previously noted that this is by no means necessary, it different from everybody else. After all, who else intrudes into

  our lives with a twenty-minute monologue every week? Who slide shows, laser-light extravaganzas, and the like. But these else knows Greek? We in the pews still seem less involved, less are not every-week options, and when a preacher offers tradi- important. And that makes us feel bad. tional homiletic fare—as he certainly must—he often finds Thus my antidote: Make everyone a minister. Install every- that he doesn’t really capture his people’s attention until he one in special services. Put everyone’s name on the masthead utters the curiously rehabilitative phrase “And in conclusion of the bulletin. Make everyone feel equally important. . . . .”And then it’s too late. Sermons are still a problem. Sacralize everything. Transform the Sunday school superinten- Some continue to insist that the well-organized, theological- dent into the minister of the Sunday school; install the trustees ly sound homily wrought by laborious hours of book work is as ministers of the grounds and the server for the post-service an option. But please, let’s talk reality here! People don’t want fellowship hour as minister of the coffee grounds. Haul up the that. They want a compendium of upbeat anecdotes and jokes church-picnic helpers to the chancel and “ordain” them as culminating in a definitive list of how-tos. So the problem such on the morning of the picnic. remains: how to capture and retain the attention of a couple This concept provides a solution to the committee-meeting hundred parishioners, disparate in taste and widely varied in problem as well. As all churches have committees, it is univer- need. It is a dilemma that has haunted persons of the cloth sally true that once established, these committees must meet. since Luther’s time and even before. Luther, anyhow, had an Thus we have meetings. advantage—his congregation had to stand all the way through Nowhere on the ecclesiastical spectrum is this phenomenon his sermons. Obviously we can’t have that. We can’t even get more prevalent than in church growth churches. With each ours to stand for the reading of the gospel anymore. So we new program such a church undertakes, it establishes an came up with the sermon outline instead. attendant committee to oversee that program. I know from Sermon outlines have served many uses; and great they are, experience that in growing churches committees breed like too, so far as they go. But, here again, these aids have become rabbits. I have walked into committee meetings with the sole predictable. Arranged in outline form with key words under- intention of overseeing the business of that particular com- lined or occasional spaces left blank for the parishioners to fill mittee, only to trudge out several hours later enlisted on the in, these outlines have become totally passé. A parishioner rolls of two or three additional ad hoc committees. opening his worship folder to see the sermon outline thinks, This would be fine, except for the fact that I—and I would “Here we go again; same old, same old” and his mind is in full warrant, church members in general—loathe meetings. For flight even before the preacher gets his opening joke out. a variety of reasons, we hate them. Certainly every church lays Give us an outline that holds our interest—acrostics or claim to a band of inveterate meeting-goers, doughty souls crosswords or mazes or connect-the-dots. Or even better, a whose adrenaline seems to flow at the mention of the real critique sheet listing sermonic illustrations and jokes could be seven last words of the church: “Let’s get together and meet used, with a space before each to allow parishioners the chance on it.” But this is a small minority of any church’s member- to grade them . . . . Worshipers will grade each item and ship, and newcomers especially are only frightened away if deposit the outline in the offering plate—unsigned, of course. told they are expected to tramp on down to the church three Thus the preacher’s illustrations and jokes can be evaluated, nights a week. parishioners have input, and future sermons can be written What, then, can be done about the meeting problem? Why with the congregation’s likes and dislikes in mind . . . . not go totally egalitarian and make everyone a committee? Church growth was a movement possessed of some puis- Churches filled with committees of one are much the case sance in the early days, a revolution that changed habits and nowadays anyhow, so why not institutionalize them? There molded minds. Traditions were felled; a great body of socio- would be no competition for meeting space and no difficulty logical dogma grew up in their place; and now we have in finding a suitable meeting night. Congregational meetings greeters, name tags, and preachers who will sell their confes- might drag on a little with a superabundance of committee sional status for a stalagmite in their growth curve. But here, reports, but that seems little payment for growth. I am contin- as always, the questions must be addressed: Does it still work? ually amazed: Why has no one thought of these things before? Does it carry the power it once did? Or is the revolution over? Have we entered the debilitating second stage, a period of Sermonic Aids. The most crucial portion of any worship retrenchment when the struggle against tradition has raised service is unquestionably the sermon. Here the pastor is accord- up for itself immutable traditions of its own? ed twenty minutes of relative quiet—twenty minutes during We must rise to the challenge of breaking these shackles of which the congregation can attend closely to his message. church growth tradition, of dispelling the fog of success that However, some—albeit mostly parishioners—see this as a has settled around our church growth eyes. We can’t be problem. Twenty minutes can be a long, long time. We came satisfied with the past, with the status quo, with how things to recognize that early on. Thus a surfeit of sermonic alterna- have always been done. We must always be thinking up new tives has been spawned: chancel dramas, dialogue sermons, strategies that work.

CONTRIBUTING EDITORS Ulrich Asendorf Paul Lehninger David P. Scaer Pastor, Hannover, Germany Professor, Wisconsin Lutheran College, Milwaukee, WI Professor, Concordia Theological Seminary Fort Wayne, IN Burnell F. Eckardt Jr. Alan Ludwig Pastor, St. Paul Lutheran Church, Kewanee, IL Professor, Lutheran Theological Seminary Robert Schaibley Novosibirsk, Russia Pastor, Shepherd of the Springs Lutheran Church Charles Evanson Colorado Springs, CO Professor, Seminary for Evangelical Theology Cameron MacKenzie Klaipeda, Lithuania Professor, Concordia Theological Seminary Jobst Schöne Fort Wayne, IN Bishop Emeritus, Selbständige Evangelische Ronald Feuerhahn Lutherische Kirche, Germany Professor, Concordia Seminary, St. Louis, MO Gottfried Martens Pastor, St. Mary’s Lutheran Church, Berlin, Bruce Schuchard Lowell Green Germany Professor, Concordia Seminary, St. Louis, MO Professor, State Univer. of New York at Buffalo, NY Kurt Marquart Harold Senkbeil Paul Grime Professor, Concordia Theological Seminary Professor, Concordia Theological Seminary Executive Director, LCMS Commission on Fort Wayne, IN Fort Wayne, IN Worship, St. Louis, MO Scott Murray Fredrik Sidenvall Kenneth Hagen Pastor, Memorial Luth. Church, Houston, TX Pastor, Frillesås, Church of Sweden Professor Emeritus, Marquette University Lake Mills, Wisconsin Norman E. Nagel Carl P.E. Springer Professor, Concordia Seminary, St. Louis, MO Professor, Southern Illinois University, Matthew Harrison Edwardsville, IL Executive Director, Board for Human Care, LCMS Oliver Olson St. Louis, MO Retired Instructor, Marquette University John Stephenson Minneapolis, Minnesota Professor, Concordia Seminary, St. Catharines Steven Hein Ontario, Canada Headmaster, Shepherd of the Springs Wilhelm Petersen Lutheran High School, Colorado Springs, CO President Emeritus, Bethany Lutheran Jon D. Vieker Seminary, Mankato, MN Assistant Director, LCMS Commission on Worship Horace Hummel St. Louis, MO Professor Emeritus, Concordia Seminary Andrew Pfeiffer St. Louis, MO Professor, Luther Seminary, Adelaide, Australia David Jay Webber Roger D. Pittelko Rector, Saint Sophia Lutheran Theological Arthur Just Seminary Visiting Professor, Concordia Theological Seminary Professor, Concordia Theological Seminary Ternopil', Ukraine Fort Wayne, IN Fort Wayne, IN Armin Wenz John Kleinig Daniel Preus Pastor, Holy Ghost Lutheran Church Professor, Luther Seminary, North Adelaide South First Vice-President of the LCMS, St. Louis, MO Goerlitz, Germany Australia, Australia Clarence Priebbenow William Weinrich Arnold J. Koelpin Pastor, Trinity Lutheran Church Professor, Concordia Theological Seminary Professor, Martin Luther College, New Ulm, MN Oakey Queensland, Australia Fort Wayne, IN Peter K. Lange Richard Resch George F. Wollenburg Kantor and Professor of Church Music Pastor, St. John’s Lutheran Church, Topeka, KS President, Montana District LCMS, Billings, MT Concordia Theological Seminary, Fort Wayne, IN

STAFF Michael J. Albrecht, Editorial Associate Gerald Krispin, Editorial Associate Thomas L. Rank, Editorial Associate Pastor, St. James Lutheran Church, West St. Paul, MN Professor, Concordia College, Edmonton Pastor, Scarville and Center Lutheran Churches, [email protected] Alberta, Canada Scarville, IA [email protected] [email protected] Joel A. Brondos, L Forum Pastor, Zion Luth. Church, Fort Wayne, IN Alan Ludwig, Copy Editor Erling Teigen, Editorial Coordinator [email protected] Professor, Lutheran Theological Seminary, Professor, Bethany Lutheran College, Novosibirsk, Russia [email protected] Mankato, MN Charles Cortright, Editorial Associate [email protected] Assistant Professor, Wisconsin Lutheran College, Martin Noland, Editorial Associate Milwaukee, WI Director, Concordia Historical Institute, St. Louis, MO Robert Zagore, Editorial Associate [email protected] [email protected] Pastor, Trinity Lutheran Church, Traverse City, MI [email protected] John T. Pless, Book Review Editor Professor, Concordia Theological Seminary Fort Wayne, IN [email protected] SUPPORT STAFF Dean Bell, L Tape Reviews Patricia Ludwig, Layout and Design Derek Roberts, Webmaster, Fort Wayne, IN Pastor, McIntosh, MN [email protected] Novosibirsk, Russia [email protected] [email protected] Albert B. Collver , Webmaster Gretchen Roberts, Proofreader, Fort Wayne, IN Pastor, Hope Lutheran Church, Denise Melius, Advertising, L Books  [email protected] DeWitt, MI [email protected] Tapes, Subscriptions, Northville, SD [email protected] James Wilson, Cartoonist, Mark Loest, Cover Design, Pastor, North Bend, OR Concordia Historical Institute [email protected] [email protected]